Who you 'pal around with' (remember that?) says more about who you are than what you say when pressured. Mike Pence continues to associate with those people, continues to evade giving a clear answer on his stance on the issue, and thus, it is only fair and logical to assume that he agrees with them, but knows that saying so will damage his career. So he takes the cowards way out.
But we see him. We see him, and we see his wife. We know who they willingly, cheerfully associate with. We know where they work, who they work for, and what policies they repeatedly champion and what policies they are silent on. They may not ever admit it in words, but that's the fun thing about humans. We don't need to speak the words to make it clear how we feel about a thing. And how Pence feels about gay people is ABUNDANTLY clear, no matter how well he thinks he hides it. We see him.
Last edited by zinderel; 04-14-2019 at 07:26 PM.
You say that they're silent. So, why are they silent?
Thanks for addressing the question.
I've suspected the same conclusion, that many Democrats don't want any upper limit on immigration. A difference between us is that I'm not sure the party is unified on this; there may be some prominent members who are against open borders, but don't want to have the fight with the extremists that will come with any honest discussion on the matter.
This is largely a distinction without a difference since we are talking about two very unpopular policies. Presumably an absolute open borders policy in which no one bothers to have any sort of border patrol is less popular than a de facto open borders policy in which the numbers allowed into the country are pretty much unlimited. However, when only a third of the United States (and 40 percent of Democrats) thinks there should be any increase in immigration, the idea that we should switch from the current numbers to allowing unlimited numbers in is not going to over well with voters, whether or not there's any kind of vetting.
https://www.people-press.org/2018/06...-into-the-u-s/
https://www.usnews.com/news/politics...g-both-parties
I will note that I do think there should be an increase in immigration, so on this issue I appear to be on the left of the majority of Democrats.
Has Mike Pence specifically associated with the people who praised the Orlando shooter?
Sincerely,
Thomas Mets
Well this line of logic eventually leads you to an inconvenient truth though, which is that the continued prosperity of America and other developed nations depends in large part on exploiting poorer and weaker nations for resources and cheap labor, and that is only possible by keeping them poverty ridden and unstable, so that they'll be desperate enough to work for peanuts and to sell off large swathes of their country to be strip mined by American corporations. If we were somehow to fix all of these failed states to a sufficient degree that they wouldn't be driven to emigrate, we would also be severely impacting our own quality of life by cutting off the flow of resources. At the end of the day, the United States accounts for 5% of the world's population but uses something like 25% of the world's resources, which is only possible because we bully the rest of the world into submission and turn around and point the finger at them for being lazy. We cannot on one hand expect to maintain the same quality of life forever, while at the same time being shocked that others around the globe would want to live the same way.
And there he goes...JAQing off again, asking minutely detailed, pedantic questions that have zero relevance but help distract from the actual matters being discussed. *throws hands in the air and walks off* Jesus Christ...
Then maybe you should give a damn that the Republican Party still opposes bans to gay conversion therapy, on the whole, and put their support for it in the f***ing 2016 Republican Party platform.
Clearly, they've changed so much since 2000. They're more full of s*** than you were then about what you're actually doing.
X-Books Forum Mutant Tracker/FAQ- Updated every Tuesday.
Nancy Pelosi hips you to exactly where she is at...
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/speaker...ew-2019-04-14/
Nancy Pelosi: The 2019 60 Minutes interviewLesley Stahl: You have these wings-- AOC, and her group on one side--
Speaker Nancy Pelosi: That's like five people.
Lesley Stahl: No, it's-- the progressive group is more than five.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi: Well, the progressive-- I'm a progressive. Yeah.
I've never cared, so I've never thought about it -- again, I judge them by their actions, not biased "inferences".
Regardless, there's no need to "infer" anything -- they've never seriously advocated "open borders" and Obama presided over a period of decreasing illegal immigration. Factually speaking, that's the end of the discussion -- everything else on the matter is just rhetoric that is based on opinion.
Now, with regards to actual facts, why are you silent about your party allowing a corrupt, lying, racist xenophobic bigot to threaten our democracy by working -- or at the very least attempting to work -- with the Russians to illegally influence our electoral process while the Republicans attempt to distract us with an issue that could have been resolved a long time ago if said unreasonable lying bigot had just been willing to compromise on an agreement?
Why is the non-factual "open borders" issue more apparently important to you than the factual lying, corruption, blatantly illegal activity, record deficits, racist, homophobic and Islamophobic fear-mongering within the Repbublican base, election fraud, climate change, and the numerous other crimes and unethical behaviors that your party routinely engages in?
What should we infer from this behavior -- this factual compliance with corruption, Islamophobia, homophobia and racism -- that is common within your party?
Last edited by aja_christopher; 04-15-2019 at 07:10 AM.
Don't believe this particular piece came up yesterday. Since it was a Sunday piece, it felt like it might get lost in the shuffle...
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/pol...ollege-n985891
Veterans could be first to pay as DeVos rolls back for-profit college oversight
That’s a particular radical view of international relations. I do not subscribe to the Marx-inspired idea that all international economic relations are necessarily exploitative if we make the effort to not make them that way. And I don’t think that making that change would be substantively harmful to us as the radical view would propose.
With Great Power, Comes Great Responsibility
Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
It’s from the cynical view of both capitalism and international relations—the idea that all relationships rely on power dynamics and those relationships are inherently exploitative as a result. I think our international relations must do better than simply accept that status quo or thought process, because we have no choice but to do better.
With Great Power, Comes Great Responsibility
Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
International economic relations aren't necessarily exploitative, ever since the end of WW2 the first world countries have cooperated quite well with one another. Of course, much of that cooperation has been to form a united front to more effectively exploit the third world, and to smother the ambitions of upstart nations who want to enjoy the same kind of wealth and power that we take for granted, we can't just be letting everyone into the cool kids club after all. America just wouldn't be where it is if we played by the rules and didn't screw anyone over, we could stop doing that and start sharing the wealth and playing nice with everyone, but then there'd be no reason why we would be any better off than anyone else, don't tell me you actually believe in that hogwash about American exceptionalism and superior Western cultural values.
Last edited by PwrdOn; 04-15-2019 at 07:52 AM.
Certainly not. Western cultures have been manipulative and harmful to other countries, especially because we bought into realist explanations of the international system for the longest time. But I’m saying, that as an international political liberal, we don’t need to assume that we can’t get mutual benefits from cooperation and that exploitation is the only way the United States maintains its position. I don’t accept that.
With Great Power, Comes Great Responsibility
Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.