Warbler

Mrebo said:

Warbler said:

Mrebo said:

yhwx said:

Warbler said:

yhwx said:

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/01/abolish-the-state-of-the-union-address.html

I don’t see what is so offensive about the President addressing Congress (and the people that are watching on tv) about the state of the union once every year. I have no idea how it could be considered monarchical. I don’t get the problem. Of course, I will certainly disagree with a lot of what Trump will say tonight. But to disagree with the idea of the President addressing Congress and the country about the state of the union every year? I don’t get it. I don’t have a problem with ide of the speech. It is also tradition(since Wilson anyway).

I don’t really care about the monarchal tone of it. I just find that it so pointless. It rarely moves the needle on polling; in fact, the average change of a president’s approval rating before and after at State of the Union is zero. Yep, zero. It’s also the worst of American politics on display: Washington suits jockeying for seats just so that they can have a handshake with the president, how politicians bring in Real People to suit their own message, the canned responses afterwards, the whole media circus around it and the typical media over analyzation, and so many other things that are bad about it. Nobody cares after noon on Wednesday anyway.

I say this, of course, as I will be watching the State of the Union in two hours!

Making my way out of D.C. right now and when I get home probably won’t watch it. Unless morbid curiosity takes hold. For the reasons you give I don’t have much interest!

suit yourself.

I make no promise either way. What do you like about watching it?

It not so much about ‘like’ with me, somehow I just feel like I am suppose to watch speeches like the state of union.

DuracellEnergizer said:

There’s nothing quite like seeing water leak from a ceiling light.

Goddammit, how I want a job and money and to MOVE OUT OF THIS FUCKING SHITHOLE.

The President says: “sorry to hear that you live in Hatti”.

Mrebo said:

yhwx said:

Warbler said:

yhwx said:

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/01/abolish-the-state-of-the-union-address.html

I don’t see what is so offensive about the President addressing Congress (and the people that are watching on tv) about the state of the union once every year. I have no idea how it could be considered monarchical. I don’t get the problem. Of course, I will certainly disagree with a lot of what Trump will say tonight. But to disagree with the idea of the President addressing Congress and the country about the state of the union every year? I don’t get it. I don’t have a problem with ide of the speech. It is also tradition(since Wilson anyway).

I don’t really care about the monarchal tone of it. I just find that it so pointless. It rarely moves the needle on polling; in fact, the average change of a president’s approval rating before and after at State of the Union is zero. Yep, zero. It’s also the worst of American politics on display: Washington suits jockeying for seats just so that they can have a handshake with the president, how politicians bring in Real People to suit their own message, the canned responses afterwards, the whole media circus around it and the typical media over analyzation, and so many other things that are bad about it. Nobody cares after noon on Wednesday anyway.

I say this, of course, as I will be watching the State of the Union in two hours!

Making my way out of D.C. right now and when I get home probably won’t watch it. Unless morbid curiosity takes hold. For the reasons you give I don’t have much interest!

suit yourself.

yhwx said:

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/01/abolish-the-state-of-the-union-address.html

I don’t see what is so offensive about the President addressing Congress (and the people that are watching on tv) about the state of the union once every year. I have no idea how it could be considered monarchical. I don’t get the problem. Of course, I will certainly disagree with a lot of what Trump will say tonight. But to disagree with the idea of the President addressing Congress and the country about the state of the union every year? I don’t get it. I don’t have a problem with ide of the speech. It is also tradition(since Wilson anyway).

The US Constitution, Article 2, Section 3, Clause 1 said:

He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient;

darth_ender said:

Warbler said:

darth_ender said:

yhwx said:

darth_ender said:

yhwx said:

darth_ender said:

But no, it must be “either you’re racist or you’re fine with a racist.”

If you voted for him, then yes, racism wasn’t a big enough factor for you to stop voting for him. Thus, you’re fine with voting for a racist. Sorry.

That’s like saying, “If you voted for Hillary, than you share her views that half the country is deplorable.”

Sorry, you missed again. Firstly, that was something Clinton said once, while Trump’s racism has been confirmed by every second of his existence.

I am sorry, but Hillary has revealed her arrogance and contempt for conservatives more than once.

True, but nowhere the number of times that Trump has revealed his arrogance and contempt for anyone that disagrees with him(especially liberals and the media).

Remember, I am not actually defending Trump. I almost voted for Hillary. In the end, I voted for McMullin.

I don’t recall him being on the ballot? Was he on the ballot in your state or did you write him in? Just curious.

CatBus said:

Warbler said:

I didn’t know that his wife had a half-sister

Yes, Sally Hemings was originally the slave (and daughter via slave rape) of Jefferson’s father-in-law. She was then transferred to Jefferson.

The more you learn about Jefferson/Hemings, the more ick.

The Churchill bit makes a good trivia question. “Which WWII leader’s diary featured long diatribes about Jewish conspiracies?” Very few will guess Churchill, but there it is.

I wouldn’t be surprised if Hitler’s diary also contained such. You said WWII leader, and did not indicate a side.

darth_ender said:

Warbler said:

darth_ender said:

But no, it must be “either you’re racist or you’re fine with a racist.”

That is not what I said. But Republicans were not forced to support Trump. They could have gone third party. They could have wrote someone in.

I was responding more to yhwx via your comment.

But I think I’ll try that third party trick next time. Maybe it’ll work 😉

doubt it, but I would still do it instead of voting for the likes of Trump.

dahmage said:

Jeb Bush was pretty principled and reasonable as I recall. He just wasn’t edgy enough for all those primary voters.

I think the problem with Jeb Bush was his name. There was too much of a “been there, done that” thing surrounding him.

yhwx said:

darth_ender said:

CatBus said:

darth_ender said:

Warbler said:

darth_ender said:

yhwx said:

darth_ender said:

TV’s Frink said:

NeverarGreat said:

darth_ender said:

-Blacks gaining the right to eat in any restaurant they want

Oh, you mean those laws that were limited to the Southern states and were first introduced by the Democrat Party, and even when Republicans later began to support those laws, it was still isolated to the South.

It irks me when people conflate the Democratic party of the late 20th - 21st century and the pre-realignment Democratic party that originally represented rural America and the South. In short, the Democratic party was socially conservative until Roosevelt, and even then it took until the civil rights movement for conservative southern Democrats to abandon the party for the Republican ticket.

Not to mention conflating the old Republican party with the present-day Republican party. The Republican party ended slavery? Yay! That Republican party no longer exists.

Now all Republicans are racists! It’s so simple to put them all in a box instead of using my head a bit! Yay!

The vast majority of Republicans supported a racist for the head of their party. If you do that, you’re either a racist or someone who’s fine with racism. At some point, there’s no difference.

Either/or fallacy. Nice.

Well many Republicans did support Trump, and I think he is a scumbag.

I think he’s a scumbag too, and for that reason, I left the party. But is it really down to exactly those two items? No, the reality of the situation is that many Republicans do not like him, but they felt he at least was better aligned with their views than Hillary on issues that were important to them, abortion being a fine example.

And many people are ignorant and do not believe that Trump really says or does the things he says and does. They believe that the media is actually portraying the president in a negative light simply to make him look bad. We were given a terrible choice in our last presidential election cycle, and some people falsely saw him as the lesser of two evils. When you have an electoral system that only gives two parties a reasonable chance of winning, it makes it difficult to choose someone who really stands for the same things you do.

But no, it must be “either you’re racist or you’re fine with a racist.”

It doesn’t take much tweaking to turn that statement true, however. Either you support him because he’s a racist or you support him because you believe the issues he’ll advance are important enough that his racism is an acceptable risk. Winston Churchill was a raving anti-Semite, Susan B Anthony was racist as shit, Thomas Jefferson owned and raped his wife’s half-sister. But people supported their causes and history still treats these people kindly because we still do.

I think the problem people on the Left have with Trump is that we thought society moved on a little bit further on racial issues than we really had, so we thought these historical examples didn’t apply to the present. Turns out, not so much.

There are slight differences, though. Trump made racism the centerpiece of his political campaign, and had no other coherent policy positions other than racism, so supporting him to advance a policy position that wasn’t inherently racist was an act of faith, rather than weighing the relative values of concrete ideals.

But you have to also understand how things are perceived. Gosh, I am not even trying to defend Trump; I can’t stand the man and I think he has permanently damaged conservative causes, as the prevailing opinion of this thread demonstrates.

Don’t worry; conservative views were already damaged for us before Trump ever came down that escalator.

My point to this is that, while Trump is clearly a racist, I believe the majority of his supporters have deluded themselves into believing he is not. This is not because they too are racists (or at least not tremendously so). This is more because of their confirmation bias that has led them to believe that Trump is being misinterpreted by the media and he just is a little too outspoken.

Delusional isn’t that much better either.

nonetheless there is a difference between voting for someone that you think is racist because you like racism and voting for someone that you have deluded yourself into thinking that he/she is not a racist.

yhwx said:

Some assorted thoughts:

1. For god’s sake, in writing, just spell out the swear word. You’re not fooling anybody by it. The only reason I do it is because of the forum rules.

If people want to censor their own posts and not spell out swear words, what is wrong with that? Also they may be doing it for the same reason you are: forum rules.

2. I hate when people try to tiptoe around the word “racist” by using euphemisms like “racially charged” or “some people maybe think this is racist.” Just say the word. The media’s definitely guilty of this.

Why shouldn’t I say that “some people maybe think this is racist” in situations where I think that is the case? I don’t understand you here.

3. Our view of what’s racist and what’s not racist is kind of messed up. Most people think you have to be some outright segregationist to be a racist. No, there’s more to it than that. And we’re heavily biased towards racist word than racist actions. See: the reaction to the shithole comment and the reaction to actually racist policies.

people sometimes disagree on what is and what is not a racist policy.

5. The most powerful tool you have in a democracy is your vote. Therefore, you shouldn’t waste it on a bigot just because you like their tax plan. Sometimes you won’t really like either candidate, but, sometimes you just have to learn to grow up and just do the right thing.

on this we agree. At the very least, you can vote third party or write-in if your candidate is a racist and you can bring yourself to voting for the other party.

chyron8472 said:

But it wasn’t just Trump vs. Hillary.
It was Trump vs. Cruz vs. Kasich vs. Rubio vs. Carson vs. Bush vs. Christie… et al.

vs. Clinton vs. Sanders.

It still baffles me how Trump managed to rise to the top among all the other better Republican candidates.

it baffles me too

darth_ender said:

yhwx said:

darth_ender said:

yhwx said:

darth_ender said:

But no, it must be “either you’re racist or you’re fine with a racist.”

If you voted for him, then yes, racism wasn’t a big enough factor for you to stop voting for him. Thus, you’re fine with voting for a racist. Sorry.

That’s like saying, “If you voted for Hillary, than you share her views that half the country is deplorable.”

Sorry, you missed again. Firstly, that was something Clinton said once, while Trump’s racism has been confirmed by every second of his existence.

I am sorry, but Hillary has revealed her arrogance and contempt for conservatives more than once.

True, but nowhere the number of times that Trump has revealed his arrogance and contempt for anyone that disagrees with him(especially liberals and the media).

CatBus said:

Winston Churchill was a raving anti-Semite,

I didn’t know that.

Thomas Jefferson owned and raped his wife’s half-sister.

I didn’t know that his wife had a half-sister that I assume was black(you say he owned her). I also didn’t know he raped anyone. Are you referring to Sally Hemings, I know about her but I didn’t realize she was Jefferson’s wife’s half sister or that Jefferson had raped her.

But people supported their causes and history still treats these people kindly because we still do.

I think the problem people on the Left have with Trump is that we thought society moved on a little bit further on racial issues than we really had, so we thought these historical examples didn’t apply to the present. Turns out, not so much.

There are slight differences, though. Trump made racism the centerpiece of his political campaign, and had no other coherent policy positions other than racism, so supporting him to advance a policy position that wasn’t inherently racist was an act of faith, rather than weighing the relative values of concrete ideals.

darth_ender said:

But no, it must be “either you’re racist or you’re fine with a racist.”

That is not what I said. But Republicans were not forced to support Trump. They could have gone third party. They could have wrote someone in.

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

yhwx said:

Warbler said:

yhwx said:

Quick question to the pro-lifers here: For what reason do you think women are getting abortions past 20 weeks?

I assume a percentage are for the same reasons in Frink’s story or for other medical reasons

I assume a percentage just couldn’t make up their minds until after 20 weeks

I assume a percentage has to do with rape.

Perhaps there is a percentage that had a sudden drastic economic change in their lives past 20 weeks to the effect that they change their minds on wanting a child.

Perhaps a percentage of women were in a medical situation (like a coma or something) where they were not mentally able to make decisions until after 20 weeks

I assume a percentage is for reasons I can’t think of right now.

the exact value of each percentage? I do not know.

I wasn’t asking for an exact percentage. The whole point of the question is to find out what people think the percentages are.

To be honest, I have no idea what the percentages are. Perhaps there are no biased statics that can help with those numbers?

The CDC collects and (I believe) publishes data. You could look it up.

Perhaps I will sometime. But I wasn’t the one asking the question.

yhwx said:

darth_ender said:

yhwx said:

darth_ender said:

TV’s Frink said:

NeverarGreat said:

darth_ender said:

-Blacks gaining the right to eat in any restaurant they want

Oh, you mean those laws that were limited to the Southern states and were first introduced by the Democrat Party, and even when Republicans later began to support those laws, it was still isolated to the South.

It irks me when people conflate the Democratic party of the late 20th - 21st century and the pre-realignment Democratic party that originally represented rural America and the South. In short, the Democratic party was socially conservative until Roosevelt, and even then it took until the civil rights movement for conservative southern Democrats to abandon the party for the Republican ticket.

Not to mention conflating the old Republican party with the present-day Republican party. The Republican party ended slavery? Yay! That Republican party no longer exists.

Now all Republicans are racists! It’s so simple to put them all in a box instead of using my head a bit! Yay!

The vast majority of Republicans supported a racist for the head of their party. If you do that, you’re either a racist or someone who’s fine with racism. At some point, there’s no difference.

Either/or fallacy. Nice.

Fallacy fallacy. Nice.

We can play the fallacy game all day long. Ultimately, nothing would result of it.

fallacy fallacy? I don’t know that I have heard of that fallacy before, could you explain it?

darth_ender said:

yhwx said:

darth_ender said:

TV’s Frink said:

NeverarGreat said:

darth_ender said:

-Blacks gaining the right to eat in any restaurant they want

Oh, you mean those laws that were limited to the Southern states and were first introduced by the Democrat Party, and even when Republicans later began to support those laws, it was still isolated to the South.

It irks me when people conflate the Democratic party of the late 20th - 21st century and the pre-realignment Democratic party that originally represented rural America and the South. In short, the Democratic party was socially conservative until Roosevelt, and even then it took until the civil rights movement for conservative southern Democrats to abandon the party for the Republican ticket.

Not to mention conflating the old Republican party with the present-day Republican party. The Republican party ended slavery? Yay! That Republican party no longer exists.

Now all Republicans are racists! It’s so simple to put them all in a box instead of using my head a bit! Yay!

The vast majority of Republicans supported a racist for the head of their party. If you do that, you’re either a racist or someone who’s fine with racism. At some point, there’s no difference.

Either/or fallacy. Nice.

Well many Republicans did support Trump, and I think he is a scumbag.

yhwx said:

Warbler said:

yhwx said:

Quick question to the pro-lifers here: For what reason do you think women are getting abortions past 20 weeks?

I assume a percentage are for the same reasons in Frink’s story or for other medical reasons

I assume a percentage just couldn’t make up their minds until after 20 weeks

I assume a percentage has to do with rape.

Perhaps there is a percentage that had a sudden drastic economic change in their lives past 20 weeks to the effect that they change their minds on wanting a child.

Perhaps a percentage of women were in a medical situation (like a coma or something) where they were not mentally able to make decisions until after 20 weeks

I assume a percentage is for reasons I can’t think of right now.

the exact value of each percentage? I do not know.

I wasn’t asking for an exact percentage. The whole point of the question is to find out what people think the percentages are.

To be honest, I have no idea what the percentages are. Perhaps there are no biased statics that can help with those numbers?

ditto on both. I will pray for you.

yhwx said:

darth_ender said:

NeverarGreat said:

darth_ender said:

-Blacks gaining the right to eat in any restaurant they want

Oh, you mean those laws that were limited to the Southern states and were first introduced by the Democrat Party, and even when Republicans later began to support those laws, it was still isolated to the South.

It irks me when people conflate the Democratic party of the late 20th - 21st century and the pre-realignment Democratic party that originally represented rural America and the South. In short, the Democratic party was socially conservative until Roosevelt, and even then it took until the civil rights movement for conservative southern Democrats to abandon the party for the Republican ticket.

It irks me when people conflate the opinions of some Republicans with the opinions of all Republicans, or some conservatives with all conservatives, or holding some views with holding all views. It really irks me that, just because there are racist Republicans or uneducated conservatives or a moron Republican for a president, that so many liberals feel that they are so obviously right on every issue that there is no debate about anything.

You’re great at these non-responses.

That was a non response?

yhwx said:

Quick question to the pro-lifers here: For what reason do you think women are getting abortions past 20 weeks?

I assume a percentage are for the same reasons in Frink’s story or for other medical reasons

I assume a percentage just couldn’t make up their minds until after 20 weeks

I assume a percentage has to do with rape.

Perhaps there is a percentage that had a sudden drastic economic change in their lives past 20 weeks to the effect that they change their minds on wanting a child.

Perhaps a percentage of women were in a medical situation (like a coma or something) where they were not mentally able to make decisions until after 20 weeks

I assume a percentage is for reasons I can’t think of right now.

the exact value of each percentage? I do not know.

Mrebo said:

I am glad to hear the pro-life sentiments from you, Frink. Pregnancy can be terrifying. So many things that can go wrong. When a baby is desperately wanted, any act is taken with that life in mind. I understand it being hard enough without worrying about some law.

But like you, I think there needs to be some limit. With appropriate exceptions, I think a bill like this would be good.

I could be wrong, but it sounds like the bill in question did not contain the appropriate exceptions.

I don’t know, I find it hard to believe that someone what was here before would forget the owner and lone admin and years ago the lone moderator. But I could be wrong, it wouldn’t be the first time.

If you used to be a member here, you should know.