Page 7 of 540 FirstFirst ... 345678910111757107507 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 105 of 8089
  1. #91

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kirby101 View Post
    Mets is just being disingenuous again. Not for the Wall means you are for complete open borders. Not for draconian anti-disabled rules, you are for no oversight.

    Same old, same old.
    He hasn't said anything about what kind of oversight he would support.

    He has suggested that one thing will lead to another type of bad oversight, the effects of which he seems to have grossly exaggerated (unless 100,000+ people have died over the course of several years as a direct result of policies that go against the disabled; Debkox linked to one result that 100,000+ ESA claims were closed following the deaths of claimants which may be where the number comes from but this doesn't mean that the requests for information contributed to all those deaths.)

    Quote Originally Posted by jetengine View Post
    Theres a difference between "Determining eligibility" and what the DWP did, which was very much intentional. When your ignoring Doctors because your corporate culture tells you to then you have to question what horrors the infinitly worse American system will generate.
    What would you consider acceptable efforts to determine eligibility?

    We might largely be on the same page on this, against bad oversight when it comes to disability benefits, but in favor of some form of oversight.

    Quote Originally Posted by zinderel View Post
    Does anyone else wake up every morning with a full anxiety attack brewing as you scan the day's headlines to see if a zealot has tried assassinating Pete Buttigieg? Or AOC? Or Ilhan Omar? I just...I know it's coming, because we live in the worst timeline, and all three of them are really going at the formerly unassailable bastions of Right Wing glory of faith, finance, and Israel.

    Pete is a 'filthy queer' (the nicest thing these false Christians say about him...) who dares to speak about Christianity like someone who has actually READ the New Testament, and no zealot is gonna be ok with THAT being president!

    AOC is an uppity brown woman that Faux News CANNOT STOP RAILING AGAINST, no matter how ridiculous they come across while doing so...

    And Ilhan Omar is a monster - sorry, a Muslim (same difference to those people...) - who wants to institute Sharia Law (unlike, I guess, the false Christians trying to conquer America from within in order to institute THEIR fundamentalist dogma as law...)!

    That's not to mention the anxiety that comes from dreading the next climate change bombshell that Republicans will ignore in the name of hoarding all the money, no matter the cost. Or the latest extinction. Or the newest religiously-motivated genocide. Or the latest atrocity from Russia and it's allies. Or the latest Republican defending rapists while trying to get laws in place to murder women who get an abortion, or...

    Every day, I wake up and my anxiety peaks before I even do anything. But no, things in America are GREAT....
    In recent years, the most prominent member of Congress to be shot has been Steve Scalise.

  2. #92
    Incredible Member zinderel's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    746

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aja_christopher View Post
    And you seem to be dodging the question I asked you directly.

    I think the "Democrats" have already shown they can handle immigration issues under Obama and there's no point in engaging in a rhetorical debate with you over false hypotheticals like "open borders" while your party is supporting a lying, corrupt, xenophobic authoritarian autocrat who threatens the very foundation of our democracy.

    So why don't you answer the questions for a change -- why aren't you and other Republicans doing more to stop Trump from abusing his power and pushing an openly racist agenda to appeal to the Republican "base"?

    You know there's no "National Emergency" so why do you look the other way while he openly lies in order to separate families at the border?

    And why is it okay for Trump to appoint Barr to the AG and then not release the full unredacted Mueller Report on Russian inteference to Congress?

    And why is it okay for your party to complain about deficits when the Democrats are in office but raise them to record levels once they get into power?

    And why do you support a party whose goal is to remove health care and reduce Social Security for millions of American citizens?

    Those are real problems Mets -- not some immigrant families at the border who are trying to better their lives by claiming asylum.
    Agreed. Mets, I generally respect you more than most right wingers because you are willing to engage and speak up for your side. But I have noticed this too: you JAQ off a lot.

    People ask you DIRECT questions and you sidestep to 'just ask a question' about something unrelated - or only tangentially related, or easily discernable from what people have posted - in order to shift to topic away from the questions asked. And then you ask questions to guide conversation kn the direction you want it to go, rathervthan addressing anything people have asked YOU, while complaining that people don't really answer your questions.

    As an example, your lengthy JAQ off session regarding border security and the ineffectiveness of the wall, and how Democrats want open borders because someone once worse a shirt saying so. Or your JAQ offs regarding Hillary. Or climate change. Or judicial behavior. Or criticisms of policy.

    I think, frankly, that it's time you answered some of these questions yourself. And clearly, without wiggle room or prevarication or further JAQing off.
    There is no such thing as an ethical Republican anymore. Period.

  3. #93
    Ultimate Member numberthirty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    16,798

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kirby101 View Post
    Trump got the same amount of votes as Romney in WI. So it's not Obama voters. It was the idiots who didn't vote for Hillary, because her emails or "just don't like her" crap that are to blame. There was also the successful voter suppression effort .
    Sure...

    https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/21/u...regret-it.html

    Many in Milwaukee Neighborhood Didnít Vote ó and Donít Regret It

  4. #94
    Extraordinary Member Kirby101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    9,053

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zinderel View Post
    Does anyone else wake up every morning with a full anxiety attack brewing as you scan the day's headlines to see if a zealot has tried assassinating Pete Buttigieg? Or AOC? Or Ilhan Omar? I just...I know it's coming, because we live in the worst timeline, and all three of them are really going at the formerly unassailable bastions of Right Wing glory of faith, finance, and Israel.

    Pete is a 'filthy queer' (the nicest thing these false Christians say about him...) who dares to speak about Christianity like someone who has actually READ the New Testament, and no zealot is gonna be ok with THAT being president!

    AOC is an uppity brown woman that Faux News CANNOT STOP RAILING AGAINST, no matter how ridiculous they come across while doing so...

    And Ilhan Omar is a monster - sorry, a Muslim (same difference to those people...) - who wants to institute Sharia Law (unlike, I guess, the false Christians trying to conquer America from within in order to institute THEIR fundamentalist dogma as law...)!

    That's not to mention the anxiety that comes from dreading the next climate change bombshell that Republicans will ignore in the name of hoarding all the money, no matter the cost. Or the latest extinction. Or the newest religiously-motivated genocide. Or the latest atrocity from Russia and it's allies. Or the latest Republican defending rapists while trying to get laws in place to murder women who get an abortion, or...

    Every day, I wake up and my anxiety peaks before I even do anything. But no, things in America are GREAT....
    Yes, it is more and more comon with regular folk who haven't drunk the Kool Aid.
    There came a time when the Old Gods died! The Brave died with the Cunning! The Noble perished locked in battle with unleashed Evil! It was the last day for them! An ancient era was passing in fiery holocaust!

  5. #95

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zinderel View Post
    Agreed. Mets, I generally respect you more than most right wingers because you are willing to engage and speak up for your side. But I have noticed this too: you JAQ off a lot.

    People ask you DIRECT questions and you sidestep to 'just ask a question' about something unrelated - or only tangentially related, or easily discernable from what people have posted - in order to shift to topic away from the questions asked. And then you ask questions to guide conversation kn the direction you want it to go, rathervthan addressing anything people have asked YOU, while complaining that people don't really answer your questions.

    As an example, your lengthy JAQ off session regarding border security and the ineffectiveness of the wall, and how Democrats want open borders because someone once worse a shirt saying so. Or your JAQ offs regarding Hillary. Or climate change. Or judicial behavior. Or criticisms of policy.

    I think, frankly, that it's time you answered some of these questions yourself. And clearly, without wiggle room or prevarication or further JAQing off.
    Can you point to questions I've been directly asked that I sidestepped?

    And I'll give you the opportunity to answer some yourself (see bottom of post.)

    Quote Originally Posted by aja_christopher View Post
    And you seem to be dodging the question I asked you directly.

    I think the "Democrats" have already shown they can handle immigration issues under Obama and there's no point in engaging in a rhetorical debate with you over false hypotheticals like "open borders" while your party is supporting a lying, corrupt, xenophobic authoritarian autocrat who threatens the very foundation of our democracy.

    So why don't you answer the questions for a change -- why aren't you and other Republicans doing more to stop Trump from abusing his power and pushing an openly racist agenda to appeal to the Republican "base"?

    You know there's no "National Emergency" so why do you look the other way while he openly lies in order to separate families at the border?

    And why is it okay for Trump to appoint Barr to the AG and then not release the full unredacted Mueller Report on Russian inteference to Congress?

    And why is it okay for your party to complain about deficits when the Democrats are in office but raise them to record levels once they get into power?

    And why do you support a party whose goal is to remove health care and reduce Social Security for millions of American citizens?

    Those are real problems Mets -- not some immigrant families at the border who are trying to better their lives by claiming asylum.
    I thought you asked the question in bad faith, by implying that I had expressed a particular opinion regarding a news item I haven't commented on at all. I don't know if that was due to carelessness on your end, perhaps an assumption that because I hold a particular view on one issue, my views on everything else are predictable, or that you knew you might be in the wrong, and were willing to keep at it based on the conscious or subconscious understanding that in an honest discussion about politics, the shortcomings of your position would become readily apparent.

    I'm generally willing to answer questions, but when a dishonest tactic is used, like the implication that I've said something I haven't said, I will point it out, since there's no point in addressing anything asked in bad faith.

    I'll note that in the interests of reciprocity, I haven't really gotten an answer regarding limiting principles on immigration, which is essential to demonstrating that Democrats don't actually favor open borders: Have Democrats expressed any opinion on a limiting principle on legal immigration (an upper limit on the number of immigrants who should be allowed in)? If so, what is it? If not, what should we infer from the silence, and why should we infer that?

    Regarding the questions...

    You asked "So Republicans aren't upset that their Republican Commander in Chief is telling people they can openly break the law and is threatening American citizens under a falsely declared National Emergency against brown and black immigrants just for the sake of pleasing his racist base?" and the answer would be that many Republicans don't like what Trump is doing, but prefer it to the alternatives by the party of "Abolish ICE."

    You asked "Why aren't you and other Republicans doing more to stop Trump from abusing his power and pushing an openly racist agenda to appeal to the Republican "base"?" and I am unaware of any openly racist agenda. It's not my obligation to clean up your questions.

    You asked "You know there's no "National Emergency" so why do you look the other way while he openly lies in order to separate families at the border?" and this question is messier since the national emergencies rules have been used 59 times since it was enacted in 1976, so the standard is more about whether it's an emergency in that context. It's certainly a problem.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/10/u...gtype=Homepage

    You asked "And why is it okay for Trump to appoint Barr to the AG and then not release the full unredacted Mueller Report on Russian inteference to Congress?" and the main reason is that Congress can't be trusted not to leak things that are meant to be confidential (IE- grand jury information, material about ongoing investigations.) There's a bit of a slippery slope, in that the purpose was to determine whether the Trump administration colluded with the Russians to influence the elections, not to have a fishing expedition on embarrassing dirt regarding the President.

    You asked "And why is it okay for your party to complain about deficits when the Democrats are in office but raise them to record levels once they get into power?" and I haven't said it is.

    You asked "And why do you support a party whose goal is to remove health care and reduce Social Security for millions of American citizens?" and the reason is that these things are expensive. I care about deficits, so we should reduce the major causes of spending.

    My questions for the left (in addition to the ones about limiting principles on legal immigration)...
    - When did to become okay to prosecute a cake-shop owner who refused to make cakes for gay marriages?
    - Is there any worry that the concern on the health, acceptance and affirmation of trans children will result in young people making permanent surgical decisions they'll come to regret in maturity?
    - What outcomes are worth the perverse incentives that are being created in the name of equality?
    - If environmentalists believe that global warming is an existential threat, why aren't they insisting on more nuclear power?
    - If the left believes that global warming is an existential threat, how comes there's no effort at a grand bargain giving the religious right a ban on abortion (its #1 issue) in exchange for their support on environmental issues?
    - Why does the Green New Deal have so much material with no connection to the environment?

  6. #96
    Incredible Member zinderel's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    746

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Mets View Post
    So far, the most prominent member of Congress to be shot has been Steve Scalise.
    Progressive political figures targeted by assassins:
    Lincoln (succeeded)
    JFK (succeeded)
    Bobby Kennedy (succeeded)
    MLK (succeeded)
    Roosevelt (failed)
    Harvey Milk (succeeded)
    Gabby Giffords (failed)
    Bill Clinton (failed)
    Vernon Jordan (failed)
    Larry Flynt (failed)
    Harry Truman (failed)
    John Purroy Mitchel (failed)
    William Jay Gaynor (failed)
    William H. Seward (failed)


    Conservative political figures targeted by assassins:
    Garfield (succeeded)
    McKinley (succeeded)
    Ronald Reagan (failed)
    Steve Scalise (failed)
    George W Bush (failed)
    Donald Trump (failed)
    Dick Cheney (failed)
    Gerald Ford (failed)
    Richard Nixon (failed)
    Andrew Jackson (failed)
    George Wallace (failed)
    A. Mitchell Palmer (failed)

    Success rate: Dead progressive figures - 5/14
    Dead conservative figures - 2/12

    So yeah, progressives have more to fear from potential assassins than conservatives, based on actual history and factual events. And when one looks at WHY various figures were targeted, one finds progressives mostly being targeted for their race, their support of social justice causes, for trying to clean up the police force, for trying to move America forward, socially.

    Meanwhile, conservatives get targeted because of policy decisions that hurt people, and that tends to make people angry enough to want to kill...

    But sure, I mean...yeah, 'both sides' and all that...
    There is no such thing as an ethical Republican anymore. Period.

  7. #97
    Incredible Member zinderel's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    746

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Mets View Post
    My questions for the left (in addition to the ones about limiting principles on legal immigration)...
    - When did to become okay to prosecute a cake-shop owner who refused to make cakes for gay marriages?
    - Is there any worry that the concern on the health, acceptance and affirmation of trans children will result in young people making permanent surgical decisions they'll come to regret in maturity?
    - What outcomes are worth the perverse incentives that are being created in the name of equality?
    - If environmentalists believe that global warming is an existential threat, why aren't they insisting on more nuclear power?
    - If the left believes that global warming is an existential threat, how comes there's no effort at a grand bargain giving the religious right a ban on abortion (its #1 issue) in exchange for their support on environmental issues?
    - Why does the Green New Deal have so much material with no connection to the environment?
    1: When the people refusing to bake the cake did so because of an inherent trait of the refused party, which goes against the 14th amendment and most state anti-discrimination laws and then tried to mask their ignorant, lawbreaking bigotry behind 'religious freedom'. That was easy.

    2: is there concern? Yes, of course there is. Any medical procedure raises concerns regarding success, viability, repercussions, public acceptance, and more. However, those concerns belong in conversations between doctors and patients, not politicians spreading misinformation and hatred under the guise of 'concern' for people they despise and see as disgusting sinners worthy of death. Your imagined world where 8 year olds get their bodies reassigned willy-nilly will never happen, and is a highly offensive caricature of what trans youth ACTUALLY deal with when coming out as trans. The vast majority of trans youth do not get surgeries. Most take medication that suppresses puberty hormones in order to avoid developing the secondary sexual characteristics of their wrong gender until such time as surgery is determined to be both viable and necessary. Not all trans people get surgery that they might 'regret later'. Very, very few children get it. Therefore, your question is typical ignorant, right wing fearmongering against an incredibly vulnerable minority. I hope you feel good about yourself.

    3: Which 'perverse' incentives? Sorry, you need to be VERY CLEAR here before I answer.

    4: Because nuclear energy - while far safer and environmentally friendly when things run properly - has a lot of risks: the health of people who work at the plants, the disposal of waste, the potential for fallout, the potential for being targeted in an attack, the risk inherent in cost-cutting capitalist pigs cutting corners and fudging on safety standards to make more money. Wind, solar and hydro on the other hand have none of those issues, thus the greater push towards those safer alternatives, which work EVEN WHEN THE SUN SETS AND THE WIND ISN'T BLOWING...

    5: Because women are not broodmares, intended only to spit out babies they got themselves pregnant with? Because women's health is not and should not be a bargaining chip, especially in an unrelated political battle with unscrupulous, bad-faith actors like your party leadership? Because women do not deserve to be punished for making decisions about their health that don't involve you? Because women are human beings, with hopes, dreams, autonomy, and rights, and as such, no reasonable person in any world would suggest banning abortion to appease the terrorists holding our government and planet hostage until they can force women to be baby factories, like their God intended? To suggest that people who care about climate change should sell out women and their health to get what they want is...well, I'm sorry, but the only word that applies here is 'monstrous'. Period.

    5: Because it is a comprehensive plan that encompasses more than JUST the environment? Because in order to truly progress past the toxic systems we have relied on, we need to make societal and infrastructure and political and industrial changes that don't directly affect the environment, but affect how we view it, treat it, use it, and so on...?
    Last edited by zinderel; 04-13-2019 at 04:55 PM.
    There is no such thing as an ethical Republican anymore. Period.

  8. #98
    Ultimate Member numberthirty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    16,798

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Mets View Post
    ...

    - If environmentalists believe that global warming is an existential threat, why aren't they insisting on more nuclear power?

    ...
    While I've never really seen myself as an environmentalist, why insist on one option when you have done very little to explore the other options?

    It's not like we live in a country where we have taken a serious run at largely powering the place with wind and solar, and failed.

  9. #99
    Extraordinary Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    5,744

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Mets View Post
    I thought you asked the question in bad faith, by implying that I had expressed a particular opinion regarding a news item I haven't commented on at all. I don't know if that was due to carelessness on your end, perhaps an assumption that because I hold a particular view on one issue, my views on everything else are predictable, or that you knew you might be in the wrong, and were willing to keep at it based on the conscious or subconscious understanding that in an honest discussion about politics, the shortcomings of your position would become readily apparent.
    No -- they were honest and serious questions. You and Trump are the ones implying that Democrats want "open borders" based on your own projections rather than actual factual evidence, which is exactly why I won't answer anything regarding "open borders" since I don't share that ideology nor have I seen any solid proof under previous Democratic administrations (Clinton and Obama) that the Democratic party supports them either.

    The same goes for the "abolish ICE" argument -- you create strawmen arguments that have no factual backing based on previous Democratic administrations and then try to say that those are the alternatives when there was no real legislative push to do so under either Clinton or Obama.

    You -- and Trump -- base many of your arguments (i.e. "questions") on lies and then expect people to give you an answer based on said falsehoods, which is exactly the kind of dishonest "bad faith" tactic you are complaining about.

    That said, you should practice what you preach in that respect.

    Now, you say you are concerned about deficits yet you support a party that raises them to record levels every time they get into power.

    You said you (or "Republicans") are against racist immigration policies but will support a racist president who tells people to break the law because the alternative is to "abolish ICE" when we both know that's not true -- both Clinton and Obama sought to strengthen our border security and you know it.

    You ignore the openly racist agenda of your base, even when Republicans like Colin Powell, Tim Scott and Michael Steele point them out and even when they are caught repeatedly breaking the law trying to disenfranchise black and brown voters.

    You always bring up "slippery slopes" when your party's corruption is in the spotlight yet you don't mind traveling down that same "slippery slope" when immigrants are being dehumanized by Republicans to the point of having their families split apart and forcing them to sleep in cages and under bridges.

    So that's where we stand and why we can't have an "honest" discussion, Mets -- because your presumptions about the "left" are dishonest from the start and leave no room for any real dialogue, while my questions are based on factual actions and policies of the Republican party, both legal and illegal... and you can't even answer those questions without lying about "open borders" and "ICE" in order to rationalize your ongoing support of an openly racist, homophobic, and corrupt political party.

    That said, I can't answer your questions about the "left" because I've told you repeatedly I'm neither a Democrat nor a leftist -- I'm a moderate who at one time considered the Republican party to be a respectable counter to the Democratic party in our political system but has learned over the years that the Republican party routinely traffics in lies, hypocrisy, racism, xenophobia, corruption, homophobia, fiscal irresponsibility, warmongering, and bigotry and therefore is not "respectable" in any shape, form, or fashion.

    Nothing you've said thus far has disproven that sentiment -- in fact, you have only routinely confirmed it.
    Last edited by aja_christopher; 04-13-2019 at 06:11 PM.

  10. #100
    Empty is thy hand!
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    441

    Default

    nevermind.

  11. #101

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zinderel View Post
    Progressive political figures targeted by assassins:
    Lincoln (succeeded)
    JFK (succeeded)
    Bobby Kennedy (succeeded)
    MLK (succeeded)
    Roosevelt (failed)
    Harvey Milk (succeeded)
    Gabby Giffords (failed)
    Bill Clinton (failed)
    Vernon Jordan (failed)
    Larry Flynt (failed)
    Harry Truman (failed)
    John Purroy Mitchel (failed)
    William Jay Gaynor (failed)
    William H. Seward (failed)


    Conservative political figures targeted by assassins:
    Garfield (succeeded)
    McKinley (succeeded)
    Ronald Reagan (failed)
    Steve Scalise (failed)
    George W Bush (failed)
    Donald Trump (failed)
    Dick Cheney (failed)
    Gerald Ford (failed)
    Richard Nixon (failed)
    Andrew Jackson (failed)
    George Wallace (failed)
    A. Mitchell Palmer (failed)

    Success rate: Dead progressive figures - 5/14
    Dead conservative figures - 2/12

    So yeah, progressives have more to fear from potential assassins than conservatives, based on actual history and factual events. And when one looks at WHY various figures were targeted, one finds progressives mostly being targeted for their race, their support of social justice causes, for trying to clean up the police force, for trying to move America forward, socially.

    Meanwhile, conservatives get targeted because of policy decisions that hurt people, and that tends to make people angry enough to want to kill...

    But sure, I mean...yeah, 'both sides' and all that...
    I was referring to the post-Trump political era just to be clear.

    Quote Originally Posted by zinderel View Post
    1: When the people refusing to bake the cake did so because of an inherent trait of the refused party, which goes against the 14th amendment and most state anti-discrimination laws and then tried to mask their ignorant, lawbreaking bigotry behind 'religious freedom'. That was easy.

    2: is there concern? Yes, of course there is. Any medical procedure raises concerns regarding success, viability, repercussions, public acceptance, and more. However, those concerns belong in conversations between doctors and patients, not politicians spreading misinformation and hatred under the guise of 'concern' for people they despise and see as disgusting sinners worthy of death. Your imagined world where 8 year olds get their bodies reassigned willy-nilly will never happen, and is a highly offensive caricature of what trans youth ACTUALLY deal with when coming out as trans. The vast majority of trans youth do not get surgeries. Most take medication that suppresses puberty hormones in order to avoid developing the secondary sexual characteristics of their wrong gender until such time as surgery is determined to be both viable and necessary. Not all trans people get surgery that they might 'regret later'. Very, very few children get it. Therefore, your question is typical ignorant, right wing fearmongering against an incredibly vulnerable minority. I hope you feel good about yourself.

    3: Which 'perverse' incentives? Sorry, you need to be VERY CLEAR here before I answer.

    4: Because nuclear energy - while far safer and environmentally friendly when things run properly - has a lot of risks: the health of people who work at the plants, the disposal of waste, the potential for fallout, the potential for being targeted in an attack, the risk inherent in cost-cutting capitalist pigs cutting corners and fudging on safety standards to make more money. Wind, solar and hydro on the other hand have none of those issues, thus the greater push towards those safer alternatives, which work EVEN WHEN THE SUN SETS AND THE WIND ISN'T BLOWING...

    5: Because women are not broodmares, intended only to spit out babies they got themselves pregnant with? Because women's health is not and should not be a bargaining chip, especially in an unrelated political battle with unscrupulous, bad-faith actors like your party leadership? Because women do not deserve to be punished for making decisions about their health that don't involve you? Because women are human beings, with hopes, dreams, autonomy, and rights, and as such, no reasonable person in any world would suggest banning abortion to appease the terrorists holding our government and planet hostage until they can force women to be baby factories, like their God intended? To suggest that people who care about climate change should sell out women and their health to get what they want is...well, I'm sorry, but the only word that applies here is 'monstrous'. Period.

    5: Because it is a comprehensive plan that encompasses more than JUST the environment? Because in order to truly progress past the toxic systems we have relied on, we need to make societal and infrastructure and political and industrial changes that don't directly affect the environment, but affect how we view it, treat it, use it, and so on...?
    Thanks for engaging with the question.

    1. This was about making cakes for a gay wedding, which is a bit distinct from discrimination based on inherent traits. But do you think it's a problem that a cake shop owner would not have faced any legal repercussions for refusing to make a cake for a gay marriage in 1985? Is this something that should have always have come with legal repercussions, and it took the law centuries to realize this, or was there a point at which legal repercussions became an ideal remedy?

    2. I'm unaware of anyone in elected office suggesting that trans people are "disgusting sinners worthy of death." With the open borders argument, the counterpoint is that Democrats are rarely explicitly in favor of open borders, but using this rationale, we haven't seen any RNC official with a "Death to Trans Kids" T-shirt. Going with the substance, you seem to be inferring stuff from my question that I haven't said (I haven't actually said that minors get surgery.)

    3. I'll rephrase this. Are there tradeoffs and costs to prizing equality? If so, what kind of tradeoffs are acceptable/ preferable?

    4. Yeah, but nuclear power produces more energy more cheaply than solar, wind and hydro.

    5. My question was more that if this was truly an existential threat, where the stake is the likely extinction of the human, how can any option be off the table if it might get enough of the population to support a grand deal? My personal answer is that global warming is serious, but not that serious.

    I'll note you didn't address my questions on the Democratic party's preferences on immigration. I know that in the past you have given your own opinions on what policies you like (and are generally in favor of open borders), but that's different from your perspective of why Democrats have a particular public posture on it.

  12. #102
    Extraordinary Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    5,744

    Default

    You've aligned yourself with a liar, Mets, and it shows in your posts.

    -----
    "The Democrats want to have no borders. They want to get rid of ICE." -- Donald Trump

    "Despite President Donald Trump’s repeated claims, Democrats are not advocating open borders, not even the ones who are calling to abolish Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

    The small minority of Democrats in Congress calling for the end of ICE have all said they would like to have many of ICE’s functions redistributed to other, existing government agencies. None has called for abandoning border enforcement.

    Trump has for years wrongly accused Democrats of wanting open borders, but he has stepped up the frequency of that attack line as Democrats in recent weeks criticized his “no tolerance” policy that resulted in family separations at the border, and as some Democrats began calling for the abolishment of ICE.

    Here’s what Trump said during a July 1 interview on Fox Business with Maria Bartiromo:

    "Trump, July 1: The Democrats want to have no borders. They want to get rid of ICE. … Between Maxine Waters and Nancy Pelosi, and getting rid of ICE, and having open borders — and the biggest thing, you have open borders. All it’s going to do is lead to massive, massive crime. That’s going to be their platform, open borders, which equals crime. I think they’ll never win another election, so I’m actually quite happy about it."

    During the 2016 presidential campaign, Trump frequently, and inaccurately, accused Hillary Clinton of supporting open borders. As we wrote then, Clinton supported the 2013 Senate immigration bill, the so-called Gang of Eight bill, which in addition to providing a path to earned citizenship for those then in the country illegally, would have included significant investments in border security. The bill would have doubled the number of border patrol agents along the Mexican border, added 350 miles of new fencing, and added a host of security and technologies to prevent illegal immigration.

    In fact, every Democrat in the Senate voted for the bill. Sen. Chuck Schumer, the Democratic leader in the Senate, cited that bill in a tweet responding to Trump’s repeated claims about Democratic support for open borders.

    -----

    Despite Trump’s claim that Democratic “‘leadership’ wants to denounce and abandon the great men and women of ICE” — as he put it in a July 2 tweet — the number of Democrats in Congress calling for the abolishment of ICE is relatively small. Only one member of the Senate or House Democratic leadership — Warren — is among them.

    Schumer, for example, says he does not agree with the calls to abolish ICE.

    “ICE does some functions that are very much needed,” Schumer said. “Reform ICE — yes. That’s what I think we should do.”

    Sean McElwee, a political data expert whom the San Francisco Chronicle credits with creating the #AbolishICE hashtag in February 2017, provided us with his running list of government officials who support abolishing ICE. Although growing, the list includes five incumbent members of the House: Pramila Jayapal, Jim McGovern, Earl Blumenauer, Nydia Velazquez and Pocan.

    And from the Senate, just Warren and Gillibrand. According to the Hill, Sen. Bernie Sanders has called for ICE to be examined, but not fully abolished.

    https://www.factcheck.org/2018/07/ca...-open-borders/
    Last edited by aja_christopher; 04-13-2019 at 06:05 PM.

  13. #103
    Incredible Member zinderel's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    746

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Mets View Post
    I was referring to the post-Trump political era just to be clear.

    Thanks for engaging with the question.

    1. This was about making cakes for a gay wedding, which is a bit distinct from discrimination based on inherent traits. But do you think it's a problem that a cake shop owner would not have faced any legal repercussions for refusing to make a cake for a gay marriage in 1985? Is this something that should have always have come with legal repercussions, and it took the law centuries to realize this, or was there a point at which legal repercussions became an ideal remedy?

    2. I'm unaware of anyone in elected office suggesting that trans people are "disgusting sinners worthy of death." With the open borders argument, the counterpoint is that Democrats are rarely explicitly in favor of open borders, but using this rationale, we haven't seen any RNC official with a "Death to Trans Kids" T-shirt. Going with the substance, tou seem to be inferring stuff from my question that I haven't said (I haven't actually said that minors get surgery.)

    3. I'll rephrase this. Are there tradeoffs and costs to prizing equality? If so, what kind of tradeoffs are acceptable/ preferable?

    4. Yeah, but nuclear power produces more energy more cheaply than solar, wind and hydro.

    5. My question was more that if this was truly an existential threat, where the stake is the likely extinction of the human, how can any option be off the table if it might get enough of the population to support a grand deal? My personal answer is that global warming is serious, but not that serious.

    I'll note you didn't address my questions on the Democratic party's preferences on immigration. I know that in the past you have given your own opinions on what policies you like (and are generally in favor of open borders), but that's different from your perspective of why Democrats have a particular public posture on it.
    Cool that you were ONLY referring to the last three years for your point about assassinations and attempts, whereas I was referring to a history full of this sort of thing and a prevalence for 'social justice warriors' to get shot for daring to try to change the world for the better. As you damn well know.

    1: This is about the bakers breaking the law. Period. When they did it, and whether those who denied wedding cakes to gay people in the 80's should have faced repurcussions or not (because gay people getting married and trying to buy wedding cakes openly in the 80's was such a big deal...) is not the point. The point is, the law is what it is, and these ignorant bigots are trying to get away with breaking said law TODAY, and hiding behind 'religious freedom' as a justification for ignorant bigotry and law breaking.

    2: Mike Pence has along history of anti-gay and anti-trans legislature and statements. His wife works at a school where gay people cannot get jobs nor can they send their child go said school (not that anyone SHOULD, but still...). Their religion, in addition to teaching that Christianity must conquer all, tells (or told) them that gay people are sinners whose blood should be upon them. Their faith teaches (or taught) that AIDS was punishment for the sin of being gay. That trans people are rapists and child molesters who must be kept out of public bathrooms. That trans people are sick. That gay people can be cured via torture. Donald Trump has enacted an anti-trans military policy to appease his religious zealot core voter who rant and rave on radio and at the pulpit and on whatever news program that's stupid enough to give them a platform that gay people are the cause of all civilization collapses, that queer people destroy families, that gay people deserve to be stoned to death for their sin. So maybe they don't wear a t-shirt with a slogan, and thus, you don't take them seriously, but they ARE saying these things in churches around the country. And they ARE getting their operatives into offices of power where they can enact 'godly' solutions to the 'ungodly' problem of 'faggotry'. And your party turns a blind eye to it all because hey...the bigots vote Republican.

    3: What trade offs are you imagining? Do you think that 'treat women equally' means men will be treated less equally? Do you imagine that 'treat black people like their lives matter' means that somehow white lives will matter less? Does 'gay people are not evil, repulsive sinners worthy of death and hell' mean to you that straight people will be rounded up and put into concentration camps? Or is it about cost? Is it worrisome to you that the cost of equality might cut into the constant need for war? Or the corporate handouts your party loves so much? Are you worried that enforcing social justice measures might infringe on cops' rights to shoot brown people and claim later that they thought acomb was a gun? Or that said measures might force bigots to shut the fuck up and stop spouting filth and lies about people based on their ignorance and fear?

    4: And the risks involved cost significant amounts of money in the long run to fix/prevent/regulate/pay off/cover up. If ALL you care about is short term, immediate financial costs, then yeah, maybe nuclear is the best. But if you care about everything ELSE that comes with such risky energy, then maybe taking an initial hit to the wallet for a long term payoff that doesn't potentially create a toxic wasteland might be better for everyone...?

    5: Your question is monstrous. There's no wiggle room, Mets. "If climate change is so existential, why can't we force women to become broodmares?' is an EVIL hot take, man. ''If women REALLY wanted to curtail climate change, they wouldn't fight so hard to not have to give birth to their rapist's babies' is not a serious policy. 'If liberals are serious about climate change, they should support Republicans in their offer tos to cut 10% of coal emissions over 30 years in exchange for making the Handmaid's Tale a reality'? Seriously? Shame on you. Forcing women to be pregnant, to bear children they do not want, to raise those unwanted children in homes filled with resentment and fear, causes those women untold emotional damage as their prospects dwindle to 'housewife', 'baby factory', or 'welfare queen', not to mention the emotional toll on all those unwanted children. But hey, climate change isn't REALLY the problem those shiny liberals make it out to be, so let's go nuts and throw out an abjectly monstrous caricature of a policy discussion to prove how seriously we take both topics, right?

    ---

    As for immigration, you know how I feel. Borders are imaginary lines that a bunch of (mostly white, almost entirely rich) men arbitrarily decided on to make their financial investments better and ensure that their enemies financial situation worsened. Borders exist to promote xenophobia, not security. Borders exist to keep people out, not keep people safe. America was founded on the concept of immigration, of multiple cultures coming together and working together to make a better world. Lofty, I know, and impossible seeming. But the Republican interpretation of borders is a return to xenophobia over security. So I say fuck borders, let anyone who wants in get in. If it costs money, divert some from our obscene 'defense' budget. Or stop spending tax money rewarding CEO's for defrauding the public and their employees. Tax the churches that repeatedly try to influence elections.

    If an immigrant breaks the law once they are here, deport 'em. Jail 'em. Treat them like criminals for committing criminal act. Seeking a better life in a nation that PROMISED THAT FOR DECADES is not a criminal act, despite how racist Republicans like Steve King, Donald Trump, Mitch McConnell, Lindsay Graham and the rest try to frame it.
    Last edited by zinderel; 04-13-2019 at 06:43 PM.
    There is no such thing as an ethical Republican anymore. Period.

  14. #104
    Ultimate Member Gray Lensman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    10,131

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zinderel View Post
    1: When the people refusing to bake the cake did so because of an inherent trait of the refused party, which goes against the 14th amendment and most state anti-discrimination laws and then tried to mask their ignorant, lawbreaking bigotry behind 'religious freedom'. That was easy.

    2: is there concern? Yes, of course there is. Any medical procedure raises concerns regarding success, viability, repercussions, public acceptance, and more. However, those concerns belong in conversations between doctors and patients, not politicians spreading misinformation and hatred under the guise of 'concern' for people they despise and see as disgusting sinners worthy of death. Your imagined world where 8 year olds get their bodies reassigned willy-nilly will never happen, and is a highly offensive caricature of what trans youth ACTUALLY deal with when coming out as trans. The vast majority of trans youth do not get surgeries. Most take medication that suppresses puberty hormones in order to avoid developing the secondary sexual characteristics of their wrong gender until such time as surgery is determined to be both viable and necessary. Not all trans people get surgery that they might 'regret later'. Very, very few children get it. Therefore, your question is typical ignorant, right wing fearmongering against an incredibly vulnerable minority. I hope you feel good about yourself.

    3: Which 'perverse' incentives? Sorry, you need to be VERY CLEAR here before I answer.

    4: Because nuclear energy - while far safer and environmentally friendly when things run properly - has a lot of risks: the health of people who work at the plants, the disposal of waste, the potential for fallout, the potential for being targeted in an attack, the risk inherent in cost-cutting capitalist pigs cutting corners and fudging on safety standards to make more money. Wind, solar and hydro on the other hand have none of those issues, thus the greater push towards those safer alternatives, which work EVEN WHEN THE SUN SETS AND THE WIND ISN'T BLOWING...

    5: Because women are not broodmares, intended only to spit out babies they got themselves pregnant with? Because women's health is not and should not be a bargaining chip, especially in an unrelated political battle with unscrupulous, bad-faith actors like your party leadership? Because women do not deserve to be punished for making decisions about their health that don't involve you? Because women are human beings, with hopes, dreams, autonomy, and rights, and as such, no reasonable person in any world would suggest banning abortion to appease the terrorists holding our government and planet hostage until they can force women to be baby factories, like their God intended? To suggest that people who care about climate change should sell out women and their health to get what they want is...well, I'm sorry, but the only word that applies here is 'monstrous'. Period.

    5: Because it is a comprehensive plan that encompasses more than JUST the environment? Because in order to truly progress past the toxic systems we have relied on, we need to make societal and infrastructure and political and industrial changes that don't directly affect the environment, but affect how we view it, treat it, use it, and so on...?
    I'll answer question 1 from my perspective. From what I can find out it isn't just a question of selling someone a cake, but of making a specialty cake for them. This is moving towards a blurry line about where art begins and what counts as it. I think the owner in question has said he'd sell any couple a standard cake (correct me if I am wrong here), but he won't make a unique one for gay couples. I'm not sure where food can qualify as art in a legal sense, but we approaching the line where it can be construed that by requiring such can be requiring speech rather than just forbidding discrimination. I don't live there and would be unlikely to buy anything even if I did - I avoid certain places to eat because I disagree with their politics and/or business practices (I won't go to Chik-fil-a or Jimmy John's) - but I also can't say what the alternatives are for a LGBT couple that wants a cake. But that sums up the question at the heart of this - are we merely banning discrimination or have we crossed the line into compelling speech?

    Aaand I probably should have quoted Mets for this....
    Last edited by Gray Lensman; 04-13-2019 at 06:40 PM.
    "Theory: The Phoenix doesn't corrupt the characters, it corrupts the authors." Gambit, King of Thieves

  15. #105
    "Comic Book Reviewer" InformationGeek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    4,356

    Default

    And now a word from the president apparently.



    This can't be real... can it? Please confirm to me this isn't real, because it feels real.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •