Talk About Marriage banner

81 - 100 of 169 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,131 Posts
Trump is the vote of non-confidence.
I agree with this. Trump is the "a pox on both your houses" vote. He has foot-in-mouth disease but his supporters don't seem to mind. At this point, the conservatives are willing to let the GOP implode and have a do-over, because they know that cleaning house has to start with them, as the Democrats will never have that introspection to recognize their party's failures.

Democrat Pundits: Republicans are anti-women and they want to take your abortion rights away. Back alley abortions with coat hangers! Rise up, women, and vote!

Republican Pundits: Democrats are anti-gun and they want to strip you of your 2A rights. They're gonna take your guns away! Rise up, gun owners, and vote!

These single issue voters are one reason this country is in limbo and continues to be ruled by the establishment. If the fear monger tactics work, why change it?

Both are divide-and-conquer fear monger tactics that have proven to work over and over. While under Obama, efforts have been made to limit the number of rounds in a magazine, the number of guns sold during his tenure experienced a sharp uptick. I don't see abortion rights or the Second Amendment going away anytime soon. Even though the crime rate has actually gone down, the media likes to focus on shootings to influence the masses while ignoring cities like Chicago where it is very hard to acquire a gun by legal means yet there are hundreds of murders by guns per year.

Meanwhile, the national debt continues to rise, exponentially... from 6 trillion under Clinton to 10 trillion under Bush Jr. to 20 trillion under Obama. More people are on food stamps and welfare than at any other time in U.S. history. The labor participation rate is abysmal. The economy is growing at a rate that is the worst under any previous president. The middle class has been decimated. Tens of millions of families have lost their previous health insurance and now have to decide if they want to pay Obamacare's sky high premiums or pay the penalty tax that increases every year. Slowly the media pundits and outlets are beginning to acknowledge what many have known all along: that Obamacare is a disaster. United Healthcare and Aetna, two healthcare insurance companies, have or will bail on Obamacare. The Russians, Chinese, and Iranians think we are a joke. We got nothing from the Iranian Nuclear Deal because our leaders and negotiators are complete and utter morons. The Iranian mullahs are snickering at us as they wheelbarrows the billions our government gave them to the bank as they continue to build their nukes.

But abortions! War on women! Second Amendment!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,695 Posts
Secondly, I think a lot of women see the issue as being anti-women. While the upshot of banning abortion would be to impose restrictions on women's choice, I think it is helpful to understand that the motivation for the pro-life side is to protect the life of what is seen as a human
I appreciate that for some people they are pro-life because they have a legitimate personal or religious belief about the nature of human life, the soul, and other deep sort of metaphysical questions. There are others who at least as they express their views in public follow a mindset that pregnancy and birth is the appropriate "punishment" for sexual activity. Which is a far deeper rabbit hole to follow.

Personally, the bigger unanswered question is what occurs afterwards. Banning abortions and thus arguably increasing births might prolong but not necessarily protect the viability of said human life without any plan after that. And while adoption is of course a good idea, the number of American children in the foster care system who are not indeed adopted, shows that's not a fail-safe plan. Or about the increase in taxes to support education for an increase in children and all sorts of other financial questions.

I think the narrative a lot of the time is to vilify the pro-lifers as some kind of throwback cavemen who want their women barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen.
Some of them make it kind of easy with some of the things they say (including the Donald). Which might not exactly always be what they mean, but it is sound-bite worthy. And it's hard at times even as a rational person not to have an internal cringe and visceral reaction and feeling to some things said.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,695 Posts
At this point, the conservatives are willing to let the GOP implode and have a do-over, because they know that cleaning house has to start with them, as the Democrats will never have that introspection to recognize their party's failures.
I think Democratic voters or a good percentage of them recognized that and hence their vote for Bernie. But the establishment and the status quo wanted to go Hilary, because those on top want to stay on top.

If the rest of the DNC had just let the whole thing explode and backed Bernie we'd have a totally different election to look at. Maybe.

But really, we have a hot mess. We have a system nearly everyone agrees is sucks and broken and there's no real discernible solution.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
744 Posts
It is not illegal to wear a T-Shirt and try to your image on a TV Camera... no matter what that T-Shirt has printed on it.

Is InfoWars a political PAC? Nope, they are a syndicated radio show. There are no laws saying that they cannot sell t-shirts or even pay someone who is able to get their mug and t-shirt on a tv camera.

The PAC are governed by laws that say that they have to be 100% independent from any political party and any candidate. On the videos, those guys say that they are consultants that work as a behind-closed-doors network between the DNC, candidates, PAC and the people they pay to birddog and do violent protests and agitation. This is all illegal per our campaign and PAC laws.

A lot of the protesters have committed crimes, assault against other people and the police; destruction of property; and other crimes. There is a good chance men on those videos could be charged with conspiracy to commit crimes.
Did you watch the video I posted about PACs, super PACs, and the politicians they support? Super PACs can give money to pretty much anyone and anything they want and it's totally legal. And when they can't give directly, the indirect means are pretty easy to manage.

Here's another way to get the info: https://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2012/01/31/nine-things-you-need-know-about-super-pacs/
Posted via Mobile Device

This is all thanks to Citizens United!

And yes, paying protesters to get on TV and disrupting events is every bit as bad as trying to get the opposition to punch you. It's all an ugly game.

And as for the vandalism, both sides have been doing this for a long time. That anyone acts surprised is what is amazing. When you incite fear and anger, it's the natural result. Heck, when your candidate says he'd like to punch a protester, what do you expect? Who's inciting violence here?

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/donald-trump-punch-protester-219655

https://www.google.com/amp/mashable.com/2016/03/12/trump-rally-incite-violence.amp?client=safari
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
744 Posts
The other thing to consider here is that when it came to light that these guys were trying to get Trump protesters to punch them, they immediately stepped down. But when Trump said, on many occasions, that he'd like to punch a protester in the face, or said he'd pay the expenses of someone who did that on his behalf, did conservatives distance themselves? Did they call for Trump to step down? No... they laughed and cheered and put him on the ballot. The difference is crystal clear here.

http://youtu.be/WzYv5foyAS8
Posted via Mobile Device
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,434 Posts
Did you watch the video I posted about PACs, super PACs, and the politicians they support? Super PACs can give money to pretty much anyone and anything they want and it's totally legal. And when they can't give directly, the indirect means are pretty easy to manage.

Here's another way to get the info: https://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2012/01/31/nine-things-you-need-know-about-super-pacs/
Posted via Mobile Device

This is all thanks to Citizens United!

And yes, paying protesters to get on TV and disrupting events is every bit as bad as trying to get the opposition to punch you. It's all an ugly game.

And as for the vandalism, both sides have been doing this for a long time. That anyone acts surprised is what is amazing. When you incite fear and anger, it's the natural result. Heck, when your candidate says he'd like to punch a protester, what do you expect? Who's inciting violence here?

Trump on protester: 'I?d like to punch him in the face' - POLITICO

https://www.google.com/amp/mashable.com/2016/03/12/trump-rally-incite-violence.amp?client=safari
I think the extra outrage comes from the fact that they are admitting they aren't even following the rules regarding Super PACs. No coordination between PACs and Campaigns is permitted. And they're on video saying "we do it anyways".

Also, on a separate note, did you see the emails to Podesta, where Politico is on record referring to themselves as hacks, and giving editorial control over their stories to the Clinton Campaign? Yep. Unbiased journalism at that organization.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,434 Posts
No dear, it is actually the person making the claim that bears the responsibility to substantiate that claim. So where is your substantiation? Where do you have credible sources that link Scott Foval with the DNC?
Besides his own testimony?

I do think it's hilarious that you won't look at evidence that contradicts your worldview. And it is sad.

Is he linked to the Dems, well, CNN calls him a Dem operative.

He is a subcontractor for DNC organizations.

He is also a writer for HuffPo.

All of these organizations are linked to the point that it is incestuous.

There's substantiation for you.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
744 Posts
I think the extra outrage comes from the fact that they are admitting they aren't even following the rules regarding Super PACs. No coordination between PACs and Campaigns is permitted. And they're on video saying "we do it anyways".

Also, on a separate note, did you see the emails to Podesta, where Politico is on record referring to themselves as hacks, and giving editorial control over their stories to the Clinton Campaign? Yep. Unbiased journalism at that organization.
First, you still didn't read or listen to what I sent, or you would understand why the Super PAC funding issue is a non-issue. For example, Trump can use his Super PAC funds to reimburse himself for the money he spent out of his own pocket to "self fund" his campaign. Totally legal.

http://youtu.be/cet3NcNNSc4

Second - we haven't had unbiased media in the US ever. One reporter for a small news organization from which only 4% of Americans receive their news is hardly a scandal.
Posted via Mobile Device
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
744 Posts
Besides his own testimony?

I do think it's hilarious that you won't look at evidence that contradicts your worldview. And it is sad.

Is he linked to the Dems, well, CNN calls him a Dem operative.

He is a subcontractor for DNC organizations.

He is also a writer for HuffPo.

All of these organizations are linked to the point that it is incestuous.

There's substantiation for you.
Well, he's gone now, isn't he? Where's the man who called for conservatives to punch protestors in the face? To "knock the h-ll out of them!" He's on the ballot...
Posted via Mobile Device
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,279 Posts
Both are divide-and-conquer fear monger tactics that have proven to work over and over. While under Obama, efforts have been made to limit the number of rounds in a magazine, the number of guns sold during his tenure experienced a sharp uptick. I don't see abortion rights or the Second Amendment going away anytime soon. Even though the crime rate has actually gone down, the media likes to focus on shootings to influence the masses while ignoring cities like Chicago where it is very hard to acquire a gun by legal means yet there are hundreds of murders by guns per year.
The Supreme Court. It is currently divided on the 2A. The next President will fill one existing vacancy and probably 2 more. Then in the next term (4 years out from now) there will likely be at least one more vacancy. So, the next POTUS will fill 3 to maybe 5 seats on the Supreme Court.

The left believes in judicial activism, and there are numerous federal judges as well as half the existing SCOTUS who believe the 2A as written should be invalidated. The original intent is clear. The 2A (and the rest of the Bill of Rights) say in plain language what it means. It is fine if people don't like it, but a Supreme Court Justice is charged with, and swears an oath to, uphold the Constitution rather than redefine it to fit current or personal sensibilities.

Hillary will nominate justices who she believes will eviscerate any individual right to keep or bear arms in any substantive form. She has said this many times in many ways. So I don't think it is some false narrative to say citizens' 2A rights will be essentially eliminated under Hillary. And I think the result will be extremely ugly.

On the other hand, abortion is not going to be outlawed by the SCOTUS. The most they would do is revert to states' rights, allowing each state to make their own laws. Trump has been pro-choice most of his adult life. I am not convinced he is truly pro-life at this point, probably he is with the large majority of Americans who would like abortion to be rare but legal. Trump is not going to be looking to nominate stridently anti-abortion justices.



Meanwhile, the national debt continues to rise, exponentially... from 6 trillion under Clinton to 10 trillion under Bush Jr. to 20 trillion under Obama. More people are on food stamps and welfare than at any other time in U.S. history. The labor participation rate is abysmal. The economy is growing at a rate that is the worst under any previous president. The middle class has been decimated. Tens of millions of families have lost their previous health insurance and now have to decide if they want to pay Obamacare's sky high premiums or pay the penalty tax that increases every year. Slowly the media pundits and outlets are beginning to acknowledge what many have known all along: that Obamacare is a disaster. United Healthcare and Aetna, two healthcare insurance companies, have or will bail on Obamacare. The Russians, Chinese, and Iranians think we are a joke. We got nothing from the Iranian Nuclear Deal because our leaders and negotiators are complete and utter morons. The Iranian mullahs are snickering at us as they wheelbarrows the billions our government gave them to the bank as they continue to build their nukes.

But abortions! War on women! Second Amendment!
I would be happy if the discussions were substantive even on the issues of abortion, women's rights, and the 2A. Instead we are bombarded with the latest drivel of manufactured Trump scandals. Better yet would be if the candidates would discuss the real issues you listed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,279 Posts
There are others who at least as they express their views in public follow a mindset that pregnancy and birth is the appropriate "punishment" for sexual activity. Which is a far deeper rabbit hole to follow.
And on the other side there is a fringe group who view abortion as a viable tool for eugenics or for reducing certain races. But the majority of both sides are good decent people with defensible moral positions, and neither group is going to change the other's position.

By recognizing and respecting that in the other side, we can come to some areas of agreement. Even those who view abortion as solely the choice of the woman (without the racial cleansing or eugenics aspects) must know it is a risky medical procedure and that there are frequently long term emotional scars. Fewer abortions would be a good goal from the standpoint of women's health. Many abortions are due to either ignorance or irresponsible behavior. There is much opportunity to reduce the demand for abortion. On the other side of the table, those who see abortion as murdering a human can recognize that they can never achieve zero abortions, and that there is a certain reality to deal with, including that outlawing it will not stop it and there will be some very bad results as a result. The pro-life side could accept that there are cooperative ways to get much closer to their ideal, and that would be a big win under their belief system.

Both sides can find wins as long as they don't try to convert or dominate the other side.

Personally, the bigger unanswered question is what occurs afterwards. Banning abortions and thus arguably increasing births might prolong but not necessarily protect the viability of said human life without any plan after that. And while adoption is of course a good idea, the number of American children in the foster care system who are not indeed adopted, shows that's not a fail-safe plan. Or about the increase in taxes to support education for an increase in children and all sorts of other financial questions.
It isn't an easy issue once the pregnancy occurs. I think the most effective approach is to first try to reduce unwanted pregnancies, and then secondly to try to improve the adoption process. I personally know quite a few people who have adopted foreign babies because the US system is so terrible. Reducing poverty and strengthening family would go a long way to reducing the demand for abortion. We've got a lot of interacting problems in this country.

Some of them make it kind of easy with some of the things they say (including the Donald). Which might not exactly always be what they mean, but it is sound-bite worthy. And it's hard at times even as a rational person not to have an internal cringe and visceral reaction and feeling to some things said.
Yeah but some of that is biased journalism, too. When was the last time you saw the national news covering a rabid pro-abortion quote? You'll find examples in pro-life media, and it is really disturbing stuff, but you won't see it on the network news. Fringe messages tend to get publicized by the opposition to get the negative coverage.

And, I think we tend to nod our heads when someone with the same position as us says something more extreme. If you're pro-XYZ, you are pleased when someone else supports XYZ even if their motivation is different or extreme. But the opposition all sounds bad to us. They all sound like crackpots. We don't have a neutral or unbiased interpretation of what is said.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
28,148 Posts
I wonder why, if this "expose" is accurate, the other side hasn't attempted to agitate at Clinton rallies?

Could it be that Trump rally's draw people prone to violence?
Could it be that Trump supporters are too easy to manipulate? Too easy to bait and incite?
Could it be that Clinton rally's being interrupted would be met by booing instead of fists?

Good lord. Trump and his supporters are like kindergarteners.
"I'm not a racists, you are!"
"I didn't do it but even if I did he did it worse!"
"I know you are but what am I?"
"I am rubber and you are glue whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you!"
"He made me hit him!"
"Everyone is mean to me, they hate me!"
"The media is against us! It's a conspiracy!"

Grown men acting like whiny babies. Grown men tossing out punches when someone says something they don't like.

Trump is going down in flames, deservedly so.

This election can't be over soon enough.
Only in the context that the Trump Rallies seem to draw DNC staffers/agitators/paid shills who are prone to committing acts of violence.

But that wasn't what you had in mind, huh?
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
28,148 Posts
Okay, my daughter has a recording of me telling her I ordered a snow storm because I didn't want them to go to school that day. Does that mean it's accurate?

Journalism requires independent verification. Meaning you have a source who tells you something. Before you can print that, you have to get a second, independent source who can corroborate that story.

Now if Scott knew he was being filmed, and he said what he said, that would be a claim made by Scott. If Scott said something that was recorded, and he neither gave permission, nor knew he was being recorded, it becomes a murkey issues. If the recording took place in his office, that would give it more credibility. But the recording took place in a bar. How likely is it that what some guy in a bar tells you is the accurate truth!
Did you just make that up? Yes you did.

Therefore you are not helping your own case.

A genuine published video versus a video you pretend you have, but don't.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,389 Posts
Trump is a threat to our country. He spreads cancerous thoughts.
Yes, the cancerous thoughts that the US government should obey the Constitution and be concerned primarily about US citizens rather than being up for sale to the highest bidder. Imagine how horrible the world would be if that were the case!

Fortunately we have another candidate with a lot of experience in selling her office. That way, whoever pays her the most gets the most benefit from the government. What could be fairer than that?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
744 Posts
Yes, the cancerous thoughts that the US government should obey the Constitution and be concerned primarily about US citizens rather than being up for sale to the highest bidder. Imagine how horrible the world would be if that were the case!

Fortunately we have another candidate with a lot of experience in selling her office. That way, whoever pays her the most gets the most benefit from the government. What could be fairer than that?
You can thank the conservative nonprofit, Citizens United, along with the conservative Supreme Court justices at the time, for this one.

Writing his dissenting opinion, Justice Stevens said:

The ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across this nation. A democracy cannot function effectively when its constituent members believe laws are being bought and sold.

Ironic that Citizens United says their mission is "Dedicated to restoring our government to citizens' control."

Forgive them, for they know not what they do!
Posted via Mobile Device
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
744 Posts
What's so amazing about this, to me, is that candidates who lose can live off their Super PAC money for years. Look at Sarah Palin! She's spent money on hotels, car rentals, airline tickets! She spent nearly $2 million out of her PAC from Jan 2015 through Sept 2016 on herself and her friends. Airline tickets, hotels, car rentals, speech writers, consultants. She gave just $72k to candidates.
Committee/Candidate Details

She paid Timothy Crawford over $100k since 2015 for consulting and he was fired as finance director of the RNC in 2009 after only two weeks on the job. It's all there if you care to look.

Top RNC staffer forced to quit - POLITICO
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,152 Posts
And on the other side there is a fringe group who view abortion as a viable tool for eugenics or for reducing certain races. But the majority of both sides are good decent people with defensible moral positions, and neither group is going to change the other's position.

By recognizing and respecting that in the other side, we can come to some areas of agreement. Even those who view abortion as solely the choice of the woman (without the racial cleansing or eugenics aspects) must know it is a risky medical procedure and that there are frequently long term emotional scars. Fewer abortions would be a good goal from the standpoint of women's health. Many abortions are due to either ignorance or irresponsible behavior. There is much opportunity to reduce the demand for abortion. On the other side of the table, those who see abortion as murdering a human can recognize that they can never achieve zero abortions, and that there is a certain reality to deal with, including that outlawing it will not stop it and there will be some very bad results as a result. The pro-life side could accept that there are cooperative ways to get much closer to their ideal, and that would be a big win under their belief system.
What are these cooperative ways to get much of each's ideals? I don't see it. Help me out. I am as liberal as the day is long, and reducing unwanted pregnancy sounds like a great idea. I don't think you are going to see too many liberals disagreeing with things like access to effective BC, sex education... Those all have a positive effect on reducing unwanted pregnancy.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,389 Posts
You can thank the conservative nonprofit, Citizens United, along with the conservative Supreme Court justices at the time, for this one.

Writing his dissenting opinion, Justice Stevens said:

The ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across this nation. A democracy cannot function effectively when its constituent members believe laws are being bought and sold.

Ironic that Citizens United says their mission is "Dedicated to restoring our government to citizens' control."

Forgive them, for they know not what they do!
How exactly did the Clintons go from "dead broke" when they left the White House (according to Hillary, anyway) to having a net worth in the hundreds of millions?

Hint: her "charitable foundation" collected tens of millions from foreign businesses and governments, and both she and Bill were paid enormous sums for speeches. Then by a very long series of amazing coincidences, those contributors and speech buyers got what they wanted from the US government, courtesy of Hillary Clinton.

Do I need to connect the dots any more clearly?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,389 Posts
What's so amazing about this, to me, is that candidates who lose can live off their Super PAC money for years. Look at Sarah Palin! She's spent money on hotels, car rentals, airline tickets! She spent nearly $2 million out of her PAC from Jan 2015 through Sept 2016 on herself and her friends. Airline tickets, hotels, car rentals, speech writers, consultants. She gave just $72k to candidates.
Committee/Candidate Details

She paid Timothy Crawford over $100k since 2015 for consulting and he was fired as finance director of the RNC in 2009 after only two weeks on the job. It's all there if you care to look.

Top RNC staffer forced to quit - POLITICO
Ok, you've convinced me. I won't vote for Sarah Palin ever again. ;)
 
81 - 100 of 169 Posts
Top