View Full Version : “Grab them by the p---y" -- The Donald
Ultralight
10-8-16, 10:38am
Welp... GOP...
You really picked a winner.
I actually think Don's comments will give him a boost in the polls.
catherine
10-8-16, 10:57am
Stick a fork in him. He's done.
my biggest fear is that this STILL won't make him done.
And who would run...........Pence???? OMG!!! People think he's so cool, calm and collected, but he's a tea partier who is pretty unreasonable and inflexible.
Seriously.......who would run instead? It's too late for Trump to run as an independent, right?
I keep feeling like we're reliving the fall of the Roman empire............
Welp... GOP...
You really picked a winner.
I actually think Don's comments will give him a boost in the polls.
Yep, obviously there is a group of guys who really talk like this.
The Donald has shown himself to be a vulgar, know-nothing boor over and over again. Any man with a modicum of self-awareness or capacity for shame would have toned it down by now--but he's proud of what he is. That, all by itself, is telling.
This seems to me to be much more serious than any of his previous racist/sexist comments. He seems to have lost support from a number of GOP leaders because of this with a some more vocal about him pulling out. I guess the ballots are already printed. Maybe the voters don't really care that much.
iris lilies
10-8-16, 1:10pm
And who would run...........Pence???? OMG!!! People think he's so cool, calm and collected, but he's a tea partier who is pretty unreasonable and inflexible.
Seriously.......who would run instead? It's too late for Trump to run as an independent, right?
I keep feeling like we're reliving the fall of the Roman empire............
A tea partier? Inflexible?
sounds good to me.
When the result of Trump's behaviour is other politicians following suit and feeling free to do so, it does not spell well for the leadership of a country. How bad does he have to get to make people say enough? Is Trump testing this?
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2016/1004/Will-West-York-Pa.-force-its-mayor-to-resign-over-racist-tweets-video
Quotes:
West York Mayor Charles Wasko angered many of the town's 4,500 residents with memes that compared President Obama's family to orangutans, poked fun at Muslims, and made joking references to Mr. Obama and lynching.
"He left no one behind in his hate," borough council president Shawn Mauck told The Washington Post. "I don't think there's a protected class or a group that he did not hate on.... When I saw the posts, I wanted to throw up."
Wasko's racist posts affronted many residents who say that his views are offensive and downright dangerous to the groups he insulted. Monday night’s meeting saw citizen after citizen give voice to their concerns about allowing the mayor to remain in office after his racist views became public.
Hateful rhetoric, they said is just not acceptable, particularly when coming from such a public official. Mauck, however, said that he believes that Donald Trump's candidacy has led public officials to believe that they can say these sorts of things."
Where the heck is West York? All I can think of is Yorkshire, England...
iris lilies
10-8-16, 2:19pm
Trump didnt say this while he was running for Prez, he said it more than 10 years ago. Not that it really matters.
I didnt hear the Trump quote. I did just finish watching Trump apologize for this most recent gaffe where he is looking like someone is holding a gun to his head, and also, he looks very orange.
iris lilies
10-8-16, 2:22pm
The Donald has shown himself to be a vulgar, know-nothing boor over and over again. Any man with a modicum of self-awareness or capacity for shame would have toned it down by now--but he's proud of what he is. That, all by itself, is telling.
Jane, he said this in the year 2005.
Of course the Trump detractors will, for the most part, not acknowledge that.
edited to add: I did watch the video with sound, from the year 2005, where The Donald makes this "p..u..s..s..y" statement.
As usual with The Donald's utterances, it didnt bother me. He is talking in typical Donald stream of conscioisness and women are his downfall. That is the pattern of these media blow ups: the media makes a giant huge deal about Trump's latest gaffe, I dig into the orignal content and listen to what he actually says, including context, and I am not bothered by it.
That doesn't make me a Trump supporter. But--I refuse to allow the liberal mainstream media dictate how I am supposed to feel about these eruptions.
jane,, he said this in the year 2005.
Of course the Trump detractors will, for the most part, not acknowledge that.
He doesn't seem to have changed a bit over the years; I'll give him points for consistency. :~)
I find it fascinating that of all the...stuff...that has come out of Trump's mouth over the past months, this is the incident people are making hay out of.
Fnord.
I've maintained my TV news blackout, but it's kind of fun watching all the rats deserting the sinking ship from here.
I've maintained my TV news blackout, but it's kind of fun watching all the rats deserting the sinking ship from here.
Well, yes. I don't think the "establishment Republicans" wanted Trump to win in the first place. He's a total outsider, heck he's a Democraft. He threatens their control of the party and their comfortably arrangment across the aisle. He must be driven out at any cost. Any excuse will do to disown him.
Luckily, though, I still have 14 seasons of NCIS to stream through, so that'll likely get me through the election in relative safety.
Luckily, though, I still have 14 seasons of NCIS to stream through, so that'll likely get me through the election in relative safety.
I have all-day Law and Order, Special Victims. Facebook keeps me updated and I have really liberal friends so I need to insert my own grain of salt into what I hear.
Honestly I would leave this old statement of Trump's alone if he didn't show that he was still the same way. I don't ever trash a candidate that I disagree with over what their kids do or old displays of bad behavior. However bringing up Clinton's old stuff in the debate opens the door. If you don't want old things as part of the current issues then don't do it to others.
Well, yes. I don't think the "establishment Republicans" wanted Trump to win in the first place. He's a total outsider, heck he's a Democraft. He threatens their control of the party and their comfortably arrangment across the aisle. He must be driven out at any cost. Any excuse will do to disown him.
Luckily, though, I still have 14 seasons of NCIS to stream through, so that'll likely get me through the election in relative safety.
SO is a rabid NCIS fan. I like it--it's well-written with a good ensemble cast that you care about; I have a Kindle bursting with books and the ID channel. I'll be OK.
Ultralight
10-8-16, 3:43pm
Don makes Slick Willy look like an upstanding gentleman.
frugal-one
10-8-16, 3:48pm
Jane, he said this in the year 2005.
Of course the Trump detractors will, for the most part, not acknowledge that.
edited to add: I did watch the video with sound, from the year 2005, where The Donald makes this "p..u..s..s..y" statement.
As usual with The Donald's utterances, it didnt bother me. He is talking in typical Donald stream of conscioisness and women are his downfall. That is the pattern of these media blow ups: the media makes a giant huge deal about Trump's latest gaffe, I dig into the orignal content and listen to what he actually says, including context, and I am not bothered by it.
That doesn't make me a Trump supporter. But--I refuse to allow the liberal mainstream media dictate how I am supposed to feel about these eruptions.
As Trump said earlier.... he could kill someone and people would still vote for him. I don't get it.
frugal-one
10-8-16, 3:50pm
I find it fascinating that of all the...stuff...that has come out of Trump's mouth over the past months, this is the incident people are making hay out of.
Fnord.
Fnord = hypnotic power over the unenlightened. That describes Trump!
I have to admit this bill Maher quote made me laugh:
"Don't let Trump quit! You a******s voted for him, nominated him, handcuffed yourselves to this dead hooker, now drag it to the finish line!"
Nobody seemed to be bothered when Teddy Kennedy used to act the same way. I remember when he and Chris Dodd enjoyed doing the 'waitress sandwich' thing on their nights out together.
So has anyone started a pool yet of how many seconds into the debate it will take for this to come up?
iris lilies
10-8-16, 5:23pm
Nobody seemed to be bothered when Teddy Kennedy used to act the same way. I remember when he and Chris Dodd enjoyed doing the 'waitress sandwich' thing on their nights out together.
Good example of a few posts up, a pol who kills someone and they just kept voting him in.
iris lilies
10-8-16, 5:29pm
About NCIS. REALLY?
Sorry, but I dont find it well weitten in any way. It is formulaic network tv. Mark Harmon remians cute after all of these years, thats about all.
See, that's why I never comment on Literature. It's way above my head! :idea:
I like formulas, well-executed. I probably would have liked Shakespeare when he was the playwright to the masses, but I lasted about a week in Shakespeare 101.
About NCIS. REALLY?
Sorry, but I dont find it well weitten in any way. It is formulaic network tv. Mark Harmon remians cute after all of these years, thats about all.
Formulaic TV is the perfect thing to watch while on the rowing machine, or swinging kettle bells. You don't really have to pay it any attention.
I agree that if Donald Trump were to go up against any of the Kennedy's for sleezy goings-on with beautiful women, Donald might come out as the altar boy.
But timing is everything. Chappaquiddick ruined Ted's presidential aspirations, but we have a short memory and he was able to salvage his career. And, timing is everything in this case, too. A month before the election and in a different climate altogether Trump hands us confirmation bias. This episode tells us "See! We knew he was a mysoginist jerk!" Funny how the Republican elites could forgive the Mexican comments and the Muslim comments but here they come rushing to their damsels' defense like so many Sir Lancelots. Where were they when Trump discredited the Mexican judge? Where were they when Trump discredited the parents of the slain Muslim serviceman? Now they're all high and mighty. They see their own wives and daughters in Trump's "lewd" comments
So, I'm not surprised about this. I agree with IL that I could forgive this tawdry, juvenile, alpha-male drivel.. if it were the ONLY thing. But it's not.
I can't WAIT for the debate on Sunday. CathyA, you are right, we are regressing.. I feel like watching the debate will be like sitting in a Roman coliseum.
Mostly, I just like to be entertained. I don't like trying to guess at the author's intent; I've always felt that was a fool's errand.
And speaking of fools...Yes, we've had hundreds of crooked, venal politicians, and mostly they've got away with it. I hope with the Internet and with increased awareness, fewer of them will be able to. As Catherine pointed out, Trump's misogyny is just one of his glaring faults.
One difference between Trump and our other romantically adventurous politicians is that Trump is implying a violation of a women's right's by groping and making physical advances without consent. We can guess or assume that Slick Willie, JFK, and the others were in a consensual affair. Each has it's level of a violation of ethics and public trust, but to propose an example of groping without consent is worse in many respects, if not illegal. In my workplace, one of the two types of misconduct fell within zero tolerance, the other did not.
http://s3.amazonaws.com/content.washingtonexaminer.biz/web-producers/021715-York-Biden-Women-Carter.jpg
https://7373-presscdn-0-43-pagely.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Joe-Biden1.jpg
Ultralight
10-8-16, 6:53pm
Nobody seemed to be bothered when Teddy Kennedy used to act the same way. I remember when he and Chris Dodd enjoyed doing the 'waitress sandwich' thing on their nights out together.
Alan:
I tend to think they are all scum bags.
Nobody seemed to be bothered when Teddy Kennedy used to act the same way.
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/20/c9/b7/20c9b78592f635c53db0ae569bc5e564.jpg
catherine
10-8-16, 10:09pm
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/20/c9/b7/20c9b78592f635c53db0ae569bc5e564.jpg
I went to college with a friend of the Kopechne family. What they had to deal with in terms of lies and cover-up was terrible according to my friend.
I was at our "hippie" event at our farm co-op tonight and my BIL and I were talking to one of the farm members who is very into politics and activism, and we were in a discussion about Trump and how ballots could be miscounted accidentally on purpose, and BIL and I mentioned the controversial Chicago vote for Kennedy in 1960. It was interesting--his response was total silence and then "Really??"
I found it interesting to see how Kennedy has created such a beyond-reproach image among the younger generation--at least the liberal ones.
Ultralight
10-9-16, 8:06am
The GOP has lost its collective mind!
Exclusive poll: GOP voters want the party to stand by Trump
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/politico-morning-consult-poll-229394
gimmethesimplelife
10-9-16, 8:28am
my biggest fear is that this STILL won't make him done.Agreed 100 percent, ZG. Rob
gimmethesimplelife
10-9-16, 8:35am
Jane, he said this in the year 2005.
Of course the Trump detractors will, for the most part, not acknowledge that.
edited to add: I did watch the video with sound, from the year 2005, where The Donald makes this "p..u..s..s..y" statement.
As usual with The Donald's utterances, it didnt bother me. He is talking in typical Donald stream of conscioisness and women are his downfall. That is the pattern of these media blow ups: the media makes a giant huge deal about Trump's latest gaffe, I dig into the orignal content and listen to what he actually says, including context, and I am not bothered by it.
That doesn't make me a Trump supporter. But--I refuse to allow the liberal mainstream media dictate how I am supposed to feel about these eruptions.IL, no snark here, OK? I am merely trying to understand. Am I right that you don't find Trump's comments here offensive and disqualifying? As a gay man (and not a woman) I am outraged for the sake of American women, all roughly half the country of them. I'm trying to understand how a woman would not find Trump's comments horrific and disqualifying. Rob
The GOP has lost its collective mind!
Exclusive poll: GOP voters want the party to stand by Trump
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/politico-morning-consult-poll-229394
I think a lot of the GOP base doesn't like the GOP - they merely dislike the Democrats more. Now they've been offered an alternative and they are embracing it - not that they necessarily like Trump, but that they dislike the Republican party more than him.
I think a lot of the GOP base doesn't like the GOP - they merely dislike the Democrats more. Now they've been offered an alternative and they are embracing it - not that they necessarily like Trump, but that they dislike the Republican party more than him.
Yes, that's my read on it, too. I was tempted to ask my Trump supporter friends on FB if they are sticking with Trump in order to take their pulse, because I do think there's a huge divide between the rejection of Trump by party elite and loyalty of the base.
ToomuchStuff
10-9-16, 9:55am
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/20/c9/b7/20c9b78592f635c53db0ae569bc5e564.jpg
That picture should have been used back when Oldsmobile did the "It's not your fathers Oldsmobile" campaign. That ad might have been pulled, because to my generation, it was offensive.
IL, no snark here, OK? I am merely trying to understand. Am I right that you don't find Trump's comments here offensive and disqualifying? As a gay man (and not a woman) I am outraged for the sake of American women, all roughly half the country of them. I'm trying to understand how a woman would not find Trump's comments horrific and disqualifying. Rob
Why in a country of Free Speech, which can be ignorant speech, would that be a disqualifier?
Aren't there other offensive candidates? The American Freedom party?
Horrific isn't the same as disqualifying, look at our constitution for the qualifiers, and realize (wish I could remember who said it) that probably the only ones qualified to be POTUS, is a former POTUS.
I am sure there are those that would like him to stay in for both reasons (support him as well as drive more support elsewhere)
I don't find any of the tickets that will be on the ballot as qualified. But I am not an elector, either.
What about the it is better to keep ones mouth shut, then to open it and remove doubt about ones ignorance? Don't you want to know the ignorance of any candidate?
flowerseverywhere
10-9-16, 10:53am
There are many things that were gotten away with in the past that are no longer possible. With all the surveillance cameras, recording devices, social media and so on there is much more data out there.
I don't see that as a bad thing at all. Growing up in the northeast in a Roman Catholic area the Kennedy's and priests could do no wrong. Except they did. And today i don't think as much would be gotten away with.
Here is what kills me. Despite the criticism he has taken, Obama will be emerging pretty clean. He has made mistakes, but after eight years of accusations of being a Muslim, not born in the country and so on no evidence was uncovered. One female partner he has been in a long term marriage with, no women has come forward claiming disrespect or abuse. Crazy, huh?
... outraged ....horrific .... Rob
I'm curious - what words do you use to describe the *real* horrors in life, and your reaction to them?
iris lilies
10-9-16, 11:10am
IL, no snark here, OK? I am merely trying to understand. Am I right that you don't find Trump's comments here offensive and disqualifying? As a gay man (and not a woman) I am outraged for the sake of American women, all roughly half the country of them. I'm trying to understand how a woman would not find Trump's comments horrific and disqualifying. Rob
You are right. I listened/watched the entire segment. You probably didnt, but no matter, you would just be further outraged because the media is telling you to be outraged. Trump is a boor. But this "p.u.x.x.y" comment buried in the whole stream of consciousness boys locker room talk didnt bother me. There are more serious things to disqualify him.
I believe I am made of sterner stuff than you are.
My friend, a huge Trump supporter, doesnt like the "p...y" word and doesn't use it. i personally dont mind it. I suppose it is the cat connotation that softens it for me.
The "c" word, on the other hand, I find harsh. Doesnt mean I havent used it in my life, but that one gives me more of a shudder.
To me, sexual assault is one of the real horrors of life.
...
Here is what kills me. Despite the criticism he has taken, Obama will be emerging pretty clean. He has made mistakes, but after eight years of accusations of being a Muslim, not born in the country and so on no evidence was uncovered. One female partner he has been in a long term marriage with, no women has come forward claiming disrespect or abuse. Crazy, huh?
Despite his political faults (drone attacks, drilling expansions, etc.) President Obama is far better than we deserve. He's been the very picture of grace in office. I would take my family and move to Canada if I were in his position.
The flow of sludge generally increases at this point in a campaign.
Someone launches a 2005 out-take revealing Trump to be a boorish, vulgar poltroon. We are invited to be shocked, but how is this news to anyone? He has far more disqualifying character and intellectual defects, but we like to focus on the lurid stuff. It won't change that many minds. The people who hated him before will continue to do so, and his supporters motivated by "blow up the system" nihilism won't much care.
Someone launches a tranche of emails concerning Clinton's shakedown speeches at various financial firms revealing her to be a meretricious, pandering hack (I especially liked the distinction between public and private positions). While they may serve to justify the accusations leveled by the Berniecrats, this is hardly new information. Will they really change many minds, given given her history?
In both cases, how can you shame the shameless?
Back in the day, the thought was "boys will be boys," and gross, drooling lechers like Trump were tolerated, even celebrated in some circles (along with their dimwitted gaggle of gold-diggers). I'd like to think we've matured some as a culture, but I'm not convinced we have.
frugalone
10-9-16, 12:07pm
You know what I keep hoping? Between now and Election Day, he'll throw up his hands, and say, "OK, folks, I got ya. It was all a big joke. I wanted to see how far I could push the American people and still get their votes."
Which, as pointed out earlier, would leave us without a Republican candidate (except for Pence?).
But I really hope it's all a big joke.
I fear it is not.
Which, as pointed out earlier, would leave us without a Republican candidate (except for Pence?).
I think his plan all along was to gut the Republican Party.
I think his plan all along was to gut the Republican Party.
I have my suspicions along those lines, but he doesn't seem bright enough to devise such a scheme. The Clintons, on the other hand...:devil:
Or it's just performance art.
I'm trying to understand how a woman would not find Trump's comments horrific and disqualifying. Rob
Why hold an individual woman responsible for upholding a position you want to hold all women to as an identity group?
I would think it would be irritating to any given gay fellow to be assigned the role of spokesman and defender of all matters gay. It would be unfair to a black person to ask him for "the black position" on any given issue.
I won't presume to speak for her, but if IL declines to feel the way the media instructs her to feel why should she need to justify it?
Or it's just performance art.
I agree with you on the Canada part too :-)
No matter who wins, Canada is looking mighty sane right about now, and it's only 2 miles away. Lovely Saltspring Island properties seem cheaper than ones here, so it could be a nice "retirement" spot, if we sneak over the border before we're too old.
Canada thinks they're dealing with the middle east immigration.......wait 'til they see us coming!
Wow........what a mess we have here.
I think his plan all along was to gut the Republican Party.
I have always been thinking that was a possibility......
Canada thinks they're dealing with the middle east immigration.......wait 'til they see us coming!
Canada did a great job taking in immigrants from Hong Kong.
They have some pretty strict requirements. Luckily I can bring in significant investment capital, have needed skills and education, am in good health, under their age cutoff, speak French, and am a decent hockey goalie. Looks like I can skate in just on points.
If the US were to replace it's immigration law with Canada's, it would be a great improvement. The same would hold true for adopting Mexico's immigration law.
iris lilies
10-9-16, 12:58pm
... I'd like to think we've matured some as a culture, but I'm not convinced we have.
Have you SEEN a number of realty shows on teevee? Case closed.
I was pretty close to qualifying for immigration to Canada when I retired. Now, not so much.
You need to be able to speak French, not have so much as a traffic ticket, have a marketable skill...Or have a pile of money.
Have you SEEN a number of realty shows on teevee? Case closed.
You make a good point. :(
I agree with you on the Canada part too :-)
No matter who wins, Canada is looking mighty sane right about now, and it's only 2 miles away. Lovely Saltspring Island properties seem cheaper than ones here, so it could be a nice "retirement" spot, if we sneak over the border before we're too old.
I shall stand by to welcome my new neighbours. (I'm not on Saltspring, but close.)
Why hold an individual woman responsible for upholding a position you want to hold all women to as an identity group?
I think the underlying assumption is that women don't have agency.
I think the underlying assumption is that women don't have agency.
Isn't that a basic assumption of identity politics? That there should be no diversity of opinion within groups with externally identifiable common traits?
Canada sounds like a fantastic place to retire if you are 2 miles away and have the needed points to immigrate. Why not? I probably would, if I could.
Isn't that a basic assumption of identity politics? That there should be no diversity of opinion within groups with externally identifiable common traits?
http://justgoodvibe.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/the-prisoner-4.jpg
http://justgoodvibe.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/the-prisoner-4.jpg
Now we know, Iris Lilly is Number 6
Now we know, Iris Lilly is Number 6
It takes a village.
To quote Number 6, "I am not a unit of society".
And to continue that thought, "Unlike me, many of you have accepted the situation of your imprisonment, and will die here like rotten cabbages."
Always nice to meet fellow fans.
Be seeing you!
And to continue that thought, "Unlike me, many of you have accepted the situation of your imprisonment, and will die here like rotten cabbages."
It takes a village.Proof enough that Hillary is Number 2.
Which brings to mind another Number 6 quote: "You still have a choice. You can still salvage your right to be individuals. Your rights to truth and free thought. Reject this false world of Number Two. Reject it. Now!"
frugal-one
10-9-16, 7:23pm
You know what I keep hoping? Between now and Election Day, he'll throw up his hands, and say, "OK, folks, I got ya. It was all a big joke. I wanted to see how far I could push the American people and still get their votes."
Which, as pointed out earlier, would leave us without a Republican candidate (except for Pence?).
But I really hope it's all a big joke.
I fear it is not.
Ditto... frugalone.... frugal-one
And to continue that thought, "Unlike me, many of you have accepted the situation of your imprisonment, and will die here like rotten cabbages."
To whom is that quote attributed, Alan? Just curious.
To whom is that quote attributed, Alan? Just curious.
The fellow in Bae's picture, Number 6, The Prisoner.
Miss Cellane
10-9-16, 8:15pm
Have you SEEN a number of realty shows on teevee? Case closed.
Well, Trump was the star of his own reality TV show.
I was bemoaning the lack of PBS drama tonight and Fear the Walking Dead ended last week but we have the debates!
Good golly but this is fun to watch!
iris lilies
10-9-16, 10:48pm
Well, Trump was the star of his own reality TV show.
The first couple seasons of The Apprentice were decent entertainment,mhigh above most of the reality shows.
iris lilies
10-9-16, 10:52pm
I love any thread that includes content from The Prisoner.
:welcome:
I have watched SNL in years! If they repeat it, let me know!
That was over the top drama when I thought that there was NOTHING to watch tonight.
No Poldark or Indian Summers - sigh!
ToomuchStuff
10-10-16, 12:09am
Canada thinks they're dealing with the middle east immigration.......wait 'til they see us coming!
Wow........what a mess we have here.
I saw a Canadian comedian comment on that. She said that they were going to do the same thing that the USA wants to. Except the wall that they will build, will only have to be the size of a speed bump, because of how out of shape most Americans are.
Ultralight
10-10-16, 7:45am
1. I love The Prisoner!
2. Trump won the debate last night.
1. I love The Prisoner!
2. Trump won the debate last night.
1. A good show, if somewhat overrated over the years.
2. If you get points for glowering and threats, that may be true. Either way the election goes, there will be a singularly dangerous occupant in the White House.
I saw a Canadian comedian comment on that. She said that they were going to do the same thing that the USA wants to. Except the wall that they will build, will only have to be the size of a speed bump, because of how out of shape most Americans are.
If that's the level of comedy in Canada, I don't think they need to fear being overrun by people in search of a laugh.
catherine
10-10-16, 8:36am
Either way the election goes, there will be a singularly dangerous occupant in the White House.
Open question for all:
Are you:
a) Voting for one of the two major party candidates (no need to divulge which one if you don't want to) (SKIP TO D)
b) Not voting because you can't bring yourself to vote for either
c) Voting for Johnson, Stein or "other" (i.e., write in)
d) If voting for major party candidate, what kind of vote is it? i) pro-your-candidate vote, or ii) an anti-the-other-guy vote?
major party. moderately pro-my candidate. We could do better, but on the other hand we could obviously do far far worse. sniff.
Open question for all:
Are you:
a) Voting for one of the two major party candidates (no need to divulge which one if you don't want to) (SKIP TO D)
b) Not voting because you can't bring yourself to vote for either
c) Voting for Johnson, Stein or "other" (i.e., write in)
d) If voting for major party candidate, what kind of vote is it? i) pro-your-candidate vote, or ii) an anti-the-other-guy vote?
c - I am a traditional small-government conservative. Neither of the two major candidates fit that profile. Nor has either one displayed the sort of competence or character I hope for in that position.
c - I am a traditional small-government conservative. Neither of the two major candidates fit that profile. Nor has either one displayed the sort of competence or character I hope for in that position.
I'm curious. Have you been voting 3rd party for a long time now? Neither major party candidate, in quite some time, has been a small government conservative.
I'm curious. Have you been voting 3rd party for a long time now? Neither major party candidate, in quite some time, has been a small government conservative.
In some cases that has been true, but you could always see a lesser evil argument. Obama, for instance, made it very clear that he would increase the level of government involvement in our lives to a much greater extent than Romney or McCain would. In 2016, both major candidates are promising big doses of big government.
Probably "c", although I many change at the last minute. I like one candidate over the other, but have significant moral objections to both and just can't bring myself to support either. Call it a wasted voted, but maybe there will be enough of us to register dissent that someone will get the message and maybe make a difference later.
In some cases that has been true, but you could always see a lesser evil argument. Obama, for instance, made it very clear that he would increase the level of government involvement in our lives to a much greater extent than Romney or McCain would. In 2016, both major candidates are promising big doses of big government.
2004 must've been a tough decision for you, considering that both no child left behind and Medicare part D had been major policy 'wins' for Bush by then.
2004 must've been a tough decision for you, considering that both no child left behind and Medicare part D had been major policy 'wins' for Bush by then.
Even then, there was more distance between Bush and Kerry than Clinton and Trump. I also had more of a sense that Bush and Kerry actually believed what they were saying.
C, but then I usually vote c and feel the two party system as we have it now is a con.
iris lilies
10-10-16, 11:07am
2004 must've been a tough decision for you, considering that both no child left behind and Medicare part D had been major policy 'wins' for Bush by then.
I personally believe that whoever is in the White House will continue the inexorable march of federal gubmnt expansion. Either side is bad, choose option c.
And yes, I am still furious with GW over expanding the Department of Education with No Child Left Behind bullshit. Don't tell me he did it to reach across the aisle with Teddy Kennedy, he was the freaking PRESIDENT and the buck stops with him. In this, I am not remarking on the content of No Child Left Behind, that is irrelevant to my point.
freshstart
10-10-16, 11:29am
I am voting party first and anti the other guy second. It takes a lot for me to not vote party. FTR, Bernie was my man.
ApatheticNoMore
10-10-16, 11:46am
likely C
it seems to make the most strategic sense in a non-swing state anyway when both candidates are both morally objectionable AND more importantly both candidates have bad policies.
JaneV2.0
10-10-16, 12:56pm
I personally believe that whoever is in the White House will continue the inexorable march of federal gubmnt expansion. Either side is bad, choose option c.
And yes, I am still furious with GW over expanding the Department of Education with No Child Left Behind bullshit. Don't tell me he did it to reach across the aisle with Teddy Kennedy, he was the freaking PRESIDENT and the buck stops with him. In this, I am not remarking on the content of No Child Left Behind, that is irrelevant to my point.
I thought he did it because his brother sold testing packages to schools. I could be wrong. It was a dumb idea anyway.
Likely (C), which is usually my choice.
Considering the merits of ethical non-voting and strategic non-voting as well.
TVRodriguez
10-10-16, 5:54pm
Open question for all:
Are you:
a) Voting for one of the two major party candidates (no need to divulge which one if you don't want to) (SKIP TO D)
b) Not voting because you can't bring yourself to vote for either
c) Voting for Johnson, Stein or "other" (i.e., write in)
d) If voting for major party candidate, what kind of vote is it? i) pro-your-candidate vote, or ii) an anti-the-other-guy vote?
a) and d)i)
I'm with Hillary.
Apparently, trump doesn't have anyone teaching him about body language and facial expressions. During the debates, he made faces and stomped around while Clinton was talking. Alternatively, she usually sat politely, took notes or smiled. This is why trump is not going to work for me, he has no diplomacy skills IMO. He is prone to having temper-tantrums that are very unattractive. I don't think he answered any of the questions directed at him either because he just wants to attack Hillary Clinton about the email snafu. I find his behavior embarrassing and childish.
Apparently, trump doesn't have anyone teaching him about body language and facial expressions.
I thought Michael Myers was doing that:
http://www.simplelivingforum.net/image/jpeg;base64,/9j/4AAQSkZJRgABAQAAAQABAAD/2wCEAAkGBwgHBgkIBwgKCgkLDRYPDQwMDRsUFRAWIB0iIiAdHx 8kKDQsJCYxJx8fLT0tMTU3Ojo6Iys/RD84QzQ5OjcBCgoKDQwNGg8PGjclHyU3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nz c3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3N//AABEIALoAtwMBIgACEQEDEQH/xAAcAAABBQEBAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAgMEBQYBBwj/xAA5EAACAgIBAgQEAwYFBAMAAAABAgADBBEFEiEGMUFREyJhcR SBkQcVMlKhsSMzwdHhCEJikhY0Q//EABgBAQEBAQEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABAgME/8QAHREBAQEBAAMBAQEAAAAAAAAAAAERAiExQRIDYf/aAAwDAQACEQMRAD8A8yEVCd1OrIAigICKAgAEWBALHFXfl37 UBIWPLS3SGKsAfIkdjJONgvkJ1L1F966FUkzS8X4M5/ICPXTZUjDsXYr29u8YbGWTGdxtEYjW/KTDxN1WKb7F U/MhDeY 2pe8zyx8Mf/S4arkMzZVsjKqrChvdQoDH8zMPyvjfluQqanPqpO22AF6Qn0Ue kWyezyuauOe jrrDefYa6t6/tGnxLA4HQRsbAIIlLxvi2/Gda7eqyjsdOdlT9/X 80w8XLjbcYWJkUX9m LWLHT0 Vjs6k/UXKr2rKgb/ALxBrI128/KSfxAzN5FdYQE SjQH6dogqWO2J3uAwVnCseKxJWAyVidR4rEkShqEWREkQEwndQ gJhOwkEQRSwAiwJUAEcUTiiOKIHQJKxBSHBvQuPbuAP07xlVjq rsQNLxXL34TK9VePTSn8ArRQ1h9N77n07manE5/nMvFfJvy2rxyvSi10jW/uR3/WY7w8mGt5u5Bqvgr8pFrEA/XtMx4t8aZuev7uwsg14VLaDVEr169ta Wa/UkZ/O0rxR4pvGdfTiZS2HrbqsQLo78/LzmPvvsyH67mLtrWzG4anG3XQbilsZRoE6iQNnQ2ftOlSvmCPv IL7iPEBxqVxr6/8LuOtf4hv 813FVU8thNfg3LbYvytSo2 /oB31PMvKTeI5LK4rOry8K5qrV7dQ9j5iWXBu7sayr/ADEI7636frI5Wd4jnf3tQ1N3 avzM3T6b/5ki6tVbSOHHvrU6T/EQyIkrH2WIZYDBESRHSIgiA2ZwiL1EmAmE7CQRRHFESojiiaxC lEdURKCPIJApRJVNBYLsEgnQC f6ROLSbbQoUn3AGzqajO4TBxuCtybM5aXWo2l or8nkAD6ky4PPfFnKNX1cZUApXXxGB9NeX 8zFVb2uEQbY QhYSWYdXXtv4j5mXvDYgRQ7AdbTla1IXx/h1W02U /oPKaDG4HA6QPwte/cjcfxk USwrGvKYdJDeNxeJTopQikeyyRZxeFkL/i0I33URxfKPLJq4oc7wlxtw3XX8M/ PaY7nuDfi2DoS9Tevqs9PdpV8pjV5dLV2KCpGjuVmxjfBOS9XK jFSpHXJHS7sO6Ad9g k3Wfxd2NY1b1OHQ6PbYI9554pu8Pc3TkV91Rww9epfUTeYnirL 8T5PIZTgp8Jk H0dgo1ob/AEnbmxzqG6ecZZZNsJ6 pdIQd6X0jFm2Ysx2T3JlEYrG2EfYRphCGSIkiOERJhTeoRU5Aj rHVEQojqCVC0EfQdomnp38 9a7al5i8Nbl0V3YafE3/Gm9Mp/2 sYIeDQ2RfXSOxsIA3E/tNpy N43j0TJc0X19NqeQ6ge3p3Hn276my4/gM7j7EzMnCpprqIfdgVU9/Mnz9BPNv2mZnJcpyWNynJmqsZNIbHxUs6/g1 n6 cnWSHtksVOu5fYHvNRgj5gB2mawjqzcvcO8I4LHt9Zz NxpaT0rsyRXlhDod5Apz2vqP4bG IB/wB7noX9TI TyC4urL6cZEJ79N5Y/l2mG5WmSxXQeh kdRkXudn7CUvEZ9eWpNDb kc5jkq Po67Ts wHeZaT7skH17SLY4KmVPHcn NJevCus1/Lau/6ye2ZRYTQyWU3efw7Ro/kfWaxmqHxPjLdhG0bLJ3/L1lv yWg5eHzGPQ/VkMqH4BXfWg33H1EhciOvFtT0KntKDwbn5vH89j28cvVc2x0l kFdbPf7AzfNyufUbvKoepyLE6CRsCRGWWucm/h3hVC31rYvT2Hcb8vvK9xOuMoriMsO8kuIywjBHaIIjrRDQGzO RREJBHQR5BG0jqyh5B3H3ltxOZkYt7PiZH4cjv1D1/pKtJIT8/tKPRcOujxRwGbTyxTIWpSwf4QVu3k3V79if9J4NzRsuz7QrvdX UfhIzeoHb/AEnufhDDsy H5K oMAKWrrrUaTZGtsfX/ieb/tK4TF4HL4TjscMlj4a25B6iepyfP hnPv2vLF1U2VWKLEZCe jJlutDe n1jr2fHoxw53bV1IT7jfaO10o2ltXaHzk NKnMz78lu9jCsdlQHSgfaNUVW5Fi11Kzn0A7y7t4BGPXXbpD6e 00HA4tGEp0EDf1mLVkQ/BmPfjZXRkKUDHsNakzx5iPbUgpXqZe5 0krlVJnqWYAr67k58inJyR8wPyzOtY8rDuh V2X7GXfCci97rh5djuP4qXLfMjj2Pt5zRc/wCHcG5jfjp02P3PS3b9JXcZ4ZQK1uQ7gr3TXYzWs4lZB6qW9yJ A8AYrZPieukKWCk7UKDsE6I7yzvq FWV89DzkjwscurxfhjG6UGX1VUhR0gkDYDH2bRE1KlaPljvMsX RAX5QCd6 krLBNL4j4m7DvbIFNy02aO7QNqT6H o/IzO2CdmERxGHElOJHcQGGEaaPNGmkDRhOmEBhI sZSPpKHq5IrjFclVAbX233gb79n2Rmv8bARCVv6AbG/wDzrAbevv2/rM3/ANQPHH9 8ZennZitWuvTpP8AyZuP2XcUwW7krq9b Ssn1H0jP7bsFTwuByhTf4XJ HYdeSONb/8Abp/Wc 75Xl88YYKDbA ctAd1Bh6SI5rTIvrUqRvYKnYjuM3XUyesirTGyNAKfI 8est GOiobsbzI9BKBMm2pyvQWPpLzjUK1l79dT e5ixuMzyuccrJDV7VEHSvfufrH F5S3Gy1FrlkcdPfvonyMuczicdqXONjJ1efbvOcZxGMVT8RX3Q 72e0aZVwlv4hA2yNdnX2MlWXoKuhe31lZnO1N3xV7o3Zukesjf vCvXTvZkxT2W4NTH1 8f8AA6X/APyLDVifh15AsoZjry763 WvzlZZYbR0KdFm1uavwfiHkuYxK8aqxfwzK9rsmgo6lmvTK2zu QycjqV77GrLlwhY6BPqBKuwSwzKmpvsrYaKsRqQbJ6HJEcSPZJ VkjWSKjtGmjzRloDRhOmEgYSPpI6R9JRJrltxOM1jrcxRKlYL1 2fwhj9PXXnrvKhDLnhMTI5TOx8SljvfZj5Vr5lvp6mVK9p4PKw sLg6bPjH4SVFmsYeYHme0h IEo8TeCeRqs6TXkVNo/yEHYP3BAP3EwnPc c514zjj8PjaOla1Y66gu 5 /t9BNt4OHx/DLY91nUzlww9QT3/tqc7z9N PmTmuI5Dgs8Y2fhXYr aiwdnHup8iPqInEt FYD6es9Z/6i6WrPA368q7an/PpI/sZ4wMghyffzmW2iWuuxgQB9WiDy2OnWg6mIOgAPOQKM7dZTq0T JVmVVj0q1IRXA11a7mZahC8/n03C0VaQf9hU6IisbxFYcneV/lv569JXtzXIbIXKcL7aEk43K25TCnPFd6HsvXWO35iTDWmN9WT Sy12K3qNev1lPdRWHLHYb2A7QVsfDsR6flVhrQO9RvMykby2JY Umw3FEGNv4xYBPvPoT9mvh/I4Tj7m5m3Hs5K9wjJV3WtV7gdx3J3sn7e0 dq7HL1MuyEYE/rPppMwZviHFVPlNLFhrX ICgDA/UfL9wZqTax1ceecxT8DkMmrvpLXUA wJ1Kq2XPOWvkZ919iKptPWOg7BB9RKe2d8ZRLJHeSLJGeRdMNG WjzxlpA2YThhII6GPIZHWPpKJtKjo I/8PV09vWW9fMWU1vThVrjVOhVgg2zg/wAzeZlEhOtb7DuBH0MrKfST1jp3vfbR7zeeEeQFFVGP8VEem9m t2ezqwHYfmJ59S3eXPF2PXYr1khh5TXM1ju4n/wDUOVfhOJJb5xknS68lKf7gzwkjU9L/AGl KsXO4mjgvnycui83W3k9qz/J9T6n0G9ek80Y7M8/U8uvPoSTjXoH/wAYbEiwmWl9j8tjUr0/h69e/SCYZN3HZSllRK7P/EalDO7hr9JDZDE9zsxPxGscb8oyZKwaviWga3LE3Vzi1k1qR2E 98drePR SRqyluLWaz09y7IBsd/TvPCaGCa15D0nqVPiLC5vw/wAYuDkF7MWj8PkVHsa3Gu vY h/5m/5 emf6elfc3bXoPISHbJVvl3kO0zuwi2eUjPH7DI9hmQ08YeOsY0 0laNmE4YTIiKY hkZTHUMqJSGPo0iIY/Xs/w9zKJVT947yXMfuji3vQj47fLSp9T7/lKe7mePxX6Xte1vX4CBgPzJH9Jnuc5L945XWnUKUGkVhoj3Jmb 1k8JedV1js7FnYsxOySe5MRCdAnF0chAwgEIQgKVeo6EtcALUm h/FKytumS8Zvm3uX41IsrT/AIbdPtKzA5LK47M/E4lnRYN7Gthh7Eeok170rQgkeUpmO2JHvJEr1LiOdxeYo6qyK7 1G7KCdlfqPcR wzyzEyrsS9L8ewpandWE3PHc9iZuPX8S uq8j5q3Ou/03O3Pe K53nE 0yM5jjP1DY0e2 0ju3ebQljGmMUxjbGSrCTCJJhMqhAxxWkcNrzkDL5N62KY7aPq 2t/pFuC2yMyrFXdraPoB5mUfIclbl7QEpV/Jvz 8hW2NY5d2LMfMsdmInO9asju 85CEyohCEAhCEAnQdTkIHdzoYjyJETCB0knzO5yEIBCEIErEzc nDYnGuesHzAPZvuJdYfiBH0uUnQfLrXuPzmbnRNTqwbdbVsUOj qynyKntOMZlOOyHpvUC41oT83qP0mn6uoAj295uXWcdMIkmEoo M7L6R8NG76769JWkwJ3OTlbrWCEISAhCEAhCEAhCEAhCEAhCEA hCEAhCEAhCEDoltxfIaAouP0Vv9JUToOpZcGuJhIPGZPx6fn/AIl7H/ecnWJjPwhCcVEIQgEIQgEIQgEIQgEIQgEIQgEIQgEIQgEIQgEI QgO02vU/UhIhGoRo/9k=
Apparently, trump doesn't have anyone teaching him about body language and facial expressions. During the debates, he made faces and stomped around while Clinton was talking. Alternatively, she usually sat politely, took notes or smiled. This is why trump is not going to work for me, he has no diplomacy skills IMO. He is prone to having temper-tantrums that are very unattractive. I don't think he answered any of the questions directed at him either because he just wants to attack Hillary Clinton about the email snafu. I find his behavior embarrassing and childish.
Yes, he'll take W's shoulder rub of Angela Markell to a whole new level. No thanks.
iris lilies
10-10-16, 7:42pm
I thought he did it because his brother sold testing packages to schools. I could be wrong. It was a dumb idea anyway.
It is so great that when President Obama came it, he got rid of it.
Oh. Wait.
It is so great that when President Obama came it, he got rid of it.
Oh. Wait.
The ESSA was signed into law last December. It lessens federal control over schools and returns more responsibility to the states.
From Wikipedia: The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) is a US law passed in December 2015 that governs the United States K–12 public education policy.[1] The law replaced its unpopular[2] predecessor, the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), and modified but did not eliminate provisions relating to the periodic standardized tests given to students.[3][4] Like the No Child Left Behind Act, ESSA is a reauthorization of the 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which established the American federal government's expanded role in funding public education.
The Every Student Succeeds Act passed both chambers of Congress with strong bipartisan support.[5]
iris lilies
10-11-16, 12:15pm
The ESSA was signed into law last December. It lessens federal control over schools and returns more responsibility to the states.
From Wikipedia: The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) is a US law passed in December 2015 that governs the United States K–12 public education policy.[1] The law replaced its unpopular[2] predecessor, the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), and modified but did not eliminate provisions relating to the periodic standardized tests given to students.[3][4] Like the No Child Left Behind Act, ESSA is a reauthorization of the 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which established the American federal government's expanded role in funding public education.
The Every Student Succeeds Act passed both chambers of Congress with strong bipartisan support.[5]
thank you, ths post caused me to read up a bit on this Dec 2015 law. It addressed the hammer aspect of the previous federal law, so that is good. It did manage to expand the scope though, as it now ocvers Pre-k and there are other aspects. Still bigger gubmnt in action.
we would have to go back to 1965 to get the Feds out of education.
JaneV2.0
10-11-16, 12:36pm
thank you, ths post caused me to read up a bit on this Dec 2015 law. It addressed the hammer aspect of the previous federal law, so that is good. It did manage to expand the scope though, as it now ocvers Pre-k and there are other aspects. Still bigger gubmnt in action.
we would have to go back to 1965 to get the Feds out of education.
I think a simple advisory would suffice: "Students should graduate being able to read," for example. ;)
I agree somewhat with the conservative view that the federal government has too much power, too much redundancy, and costs a lot more than it needs to.
catherine
10-11-16, 12:40pm
I think a simple advisory would suffice: "Students should graduate being able to read," for example.
Can we throw in being able to name 5 Presidents?
One of the women I met at our farm co-op is a transplant from Massachusetts. She recently quit/retired from teaching because she said teaching to the test was so stressful. Kind of like working in a factory, I would imagine.
Some of these posts are making me happy we're educating our daughter (at least K-12) at Catholic schools. It's more expensive and less convenient, but they don't seem to be as test-obsessed as I'm gathering here. They do have to take the State-mandated tests, but she seems to do well on them without it being the only thing they worry about, and our school performs pretty well against the surrounding public school district.
Can we throw in being able to name 5 Presidents?
One of the women I met at our farm co-op is a transplant from Massachusetts. She recently quit/retired from teaching because she said teaching to the test was so stressful. Kind of like working in a factory, I would imagine.
There are case of teachers getting fired because they read the test questions - teach the answers - or worse - get the test booklets and erase the little dots from the boxes and make changes.
Despite all of these tests IMO students are poorly educated. Again, it is NOT the teachers fault. Kids are NOT learning the basics anymore at all. Teachers must teach only what the administrators and curriculum personnel let them teach.
Students no longer learn spelling, handwriting and other basic topics because those things are NOT in the curriculum in my area. You have kids going to college who can barely write, spell or read. I don't know how they graduate.
Some of these posts are making me happy we're educating our daughter (at least K-12) at Catholic schools.
I'm happy we mostly home-schooled our daughter at this point.
Students no longer learn spelling, handwriting and other basic topics because those things are NOT in the curriculum in my area. You have kids going to college who can barely write, spell or read. I don't know how they graduate.
My daughter graduated from high school just about two years ago. She was proficient in calculus, physics, writing, reading, musical performance and composition, chemistry, Spanish/Latin/Greek/Egyptian/Old English, fencing, livestock raising and processing, and a dozen other things.
She seems to be doing well in college.
frugal-one
10-11-16, 7:13pm
c - I am a traditional small-government conservative. Neither of the two major candidates fit that profile. Nor has either one displayed the sort of competence or character I hope for in that position.
I don't see the point... they don't have a chance of winning. Why bother? I mean to ask this sincerely... what will be gained?
I don't see the point... they don't have a chance of winning. Why bother? I mean to ask this sincerely... what will be gained?
"Which team are you rooting for in the big NFL game this weekend?"
"I'm going to my community symphony practice then, no, neither..."
"But, why? Don't you care who wins? Without your cheering, Your Team might lose!?!?!?"
"It's not a game I'm interested in..."
http://press.princeton.edu/titles/9704.html
ApatheticNoMore
10-11-16, 8:03pm
I don't see the point... they don't have a chance of winning. Why bother? I mean to ask this sincerely... what will be gained?
A lot of things can be asked why bother:
1) why bother to vote at all the election won't be determined by one person
2) why bother to vote in a solid state? I mean in my case the odds of California being a contested state are about as low as the odds of Jill Stein being the next president. They are both pretty much equally impossible. So why shouldn't I just vote for who I want?
I also don't see one major party candidate as substantially worse than the other. We have no basis for even determining how Trump would govern. On some theoretical positions Trump may be better, on some worse, only we have no idea how he will govern, probably others will govern for him. So it's Hillary Clinton versus the sometimes sensible, sometimes crazed blank slate, or whoever might govern in his place pretty much. The ballot may as well read: do you want Hillary Clinton? Yes/No I do think the strongest argument for Clinton is not against Trump but against whoever will really govern were he elected. Trump is just not that scary, but Pence might be.
iris lilies
10-11-16, 9:19pm
I don't see the point... they don't have a chance of winning. Why bother? I mean to ask this sincerely... what will be gained?
Its the long game I am interested in. A party that represents small federal,government needs to be formed. It wont formif the same yokels keep getting the votes.
If you look only a each election as a "win" for 4 more years, well, you are as bad as them, because thats how they look at it, the politicians. Our problems won't be solved in 4 years.
My vote for not Hilary or Trump sends a message to both parties.
ToomuchStuff
10-12-16, 12:56am
I don't see the point... they don't have a chance of winning. Why bother? I mean to ask this sincerely... what will be gained?
Voting for the lesser of two evils, is still voting for evil.
Miss Cellane
10-12-16, 7:12am
Why vote? In my book, if you don't vote, then you don't get the right to complain about what the government/president/governor/mayor/senator does.
Its the long game I am interested in. A party that represents small federal,government needs to be formed. It wont formif the same yokels keep getting the votes.
If you look only a each election as a "win" for 4 more years, well, you are as bad as them, because thats how they look at it, the politicians. Our problems won't be solved in 4 years.
My vote for not Hilary or Trump sends a message to both parties.
+100
I don't see how not voting (for the lesser of 2 weevils), sends any kind of message. Someone will win....because of the people who have the strongest egos. What kind of message will be sent? If it caused a no-election-at-all, then a message would be sent........but I don't see how not voting in this case would send any kind of message at all.
P.S. To me, Trump is insane. It's not that he's supposedly a Republican.......it's that he's an insane narcissist. My problem isn't that a Republican might win.........it's that it's an insane narcissist might win, and we haven't a clue what he would do or say after(if) he's elected.
Ultralight
10-12-16, 8:46am
I hope bae participates more in this conversation.
iris lilies
10-12-16, 8:51am
I don't see how not voting (for the lesser of 2 weevils), sends any kind of message. Someone will win....because of the people who have the strongest egos. What kind of message will be sent? If it caused a no-election-at-all, then a message would be sent........but I don't see how not voting in this case would send any kind of message at all.
If you are responding to me, I AM voting. I never Skip voting.
Its the long game I am interested in. A party that represents small federal,government needs to be formed. It wont formif the same yokels keep getting the votes.
If you look only a each election as a "win" for 4 more years, well, you are as bad as them, because thats how they look at it, the politicians. Our problems won't be solved in 4 years.
My vote for not Hilary or Trump sends a message to both parties.
Very well said. I have been viewing with alarm this trend of Republicans becoming more like Democrats; subordinating individual liberty to "getting things done" through broad state power, indulging in sordid identity politics and buying votes with debt.
If there is a schism within the GOP that results in a smaller but more principled conservative party, I think a few years in the wilderness could be a price worth paying.
If you are responding to me, I AM voting. I never Skip voting.. I was just responding to anyone who says your not voting sends a message in this case.
iris lilies
10-12-16, 10:32am
. I was just responding to anyone who says your not voting sends a message in this case.
Oh, I thnk you have to show up,at a polling place to send a message. One could skip the top ticket and vote downticket. But I think the message is louder if you vote non DEm or non Repub.
frugal-one
10-12-16, 12:22pm
From info from Bae's post...Bad choices at the polls can result in unjust laws, needless wars, and calamitous economic policies. Brennan shows why voters have duties to make informed decisions in the voting booth, to base their decisions on sound evidence for what will create the best possible policies, and to promote the common good rather than their own self-interest. They must vote well--or not vote at all. Brennan explains why voting is not necessarily the best way for citizens to exercise their civic duty, and why some citizens need to stay away from the polls to protect the democratic process from their uninformed, irrational, or immoral votes. I take this to mean to vote for the best person you actually has a chance of winning, otherwise ... read above.
From Iris Lilies post..My vote for not Hilary or Trump sends a message to both parties. They could care less, at the end it is a mute point. Who cares.... they will be in power and make the decisions.
Correct me if I have this wrong please. Did not Hitler get elected because the voters didn't like the other two guys standing for election and he was the unknown?
Ultralight
10-12-16, 1:28pm
Correct me if I have this wrong please. Did not Hitler get elected because the voters didn't like the other two guys standing for election and he was the unknown?
I think Hitler got elected because people voted for him. Had no one voted for him, then he would have not been elected.
Don't blame Hitler on people who did not vote for him. Blame Hitler on Hitler and his supporters.
I didn't read razz's post as blaming Hitler's getting elected on non-voters. I read it as voters voted for hitler even though they didn't really know what policies,he planned to implement. That he did the post WWI version of 'I will make Germany great again. I've got great plans, the very greatest plans!'
I think Hitler got elected because people voted for him. Had no one voted for him, then he would have not been elected.
Don't blame Hitler on people who did not vote for him. Blame Hitler on Hitler and his supporters.
I thought Hitler lost the 1932 election for the Wiemar presidency to Hindenburg, and only succeeded him after he died, at which point he began mucking with the constitution to make his situation more permanent.
ApatheticNoMore
10-12-16, 2:15pm
Correct me if I have this wrong please. Did not Hitler get elected because the voters didn't like the other two guys standing for election and he was the unknown?
No. Hitler didn't get elected. First off it was supposed to (on paper) be a parliamentary system. Second the parliamentary system had to be bent and twisted many ways to get Hitler into power including temporary shut down, members removed etc.. When Hitler ran for direct election he lost. He gained power anyway.
No. Hitler didn't get elected. First off it was supposed to (on paper) be a parliamentary system. Second the parliamentary system had to be bent and twisted many ways to get Hitler into power including temporary shut down, members removed etc.. When Hitler ran for direct election he lost. He gained power anyway.
Reichstag Fire Decree https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_Fire_Decree - if anyone needs an example of "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.", this is it.
Oh, I thnk you have to show up,at a polling place to send a message. One could skip the top ticket and vote downticket. But I think the message is louder if you vote non DEm or non Repub.
But IL........voting downticket might let the top candidates know that you're unhappy........but the worst one might still win. How good is that message?
ApatheticNoMore
10-12-16, 3:38pm
Hitler was appointed by Hindenburg after losing to him, it's like if Trump lost to Hillary and was appointed to some powerful position anyway and then given even more power when she dies of pneumonia or whatever. No, that's not likely to happen (though she owes him *something* ...). But if we want to apply it to the present whatever it is an example of it doesn't seem to be an example of not liking the other contenders and so letting Hitler take power.
Trump is potentially dangerous, Trump is potentially a lot of things (few of them all that great) including perhaps easily sidelined if he did have power.
The thing is about the Reichstag laws is many of them had already been applied prior in the U.S.. Maybe THEY learned from US. The suppression of publications, all publications critical of World War I were suppressed in the U.S. before then. Suppression of trade unions, there was massive trade union suppression in the U.S. in the same WWI period. Now this was a bit later in time. And no the U.S. never took it all the way to @#$# death camps (just Japanese internment camps in WWII).
Ultralight
10-12-16, 3:38pm
A friend of mine, an armchair SJW says that voting 3rd party is easy if you have white privilege.
flowerseverywhere
10-13-16, 6:37am
I will be able to early vote in less then two weeks.
My decision will be based on who I think will be the best at handling the major issues that will benefit our country as a whole.
In in the past, I have thought about who is trying to promote their religious agenda. I think about who will be able to make the tough decisions when you have threats from foreign leaders. Who will respond the best when a crisis hits. Who will stand up best under the enormous pressure that faces a president of the greatest country of the world. Who will promote fulfillment of our obligations to our military, active and retired, to our retirees, to the working class?
This is election is particularly tricky, but I think it is possible not to get caught up in knee jerk reactions to what the media is promoting with this 24 hour news cycle. Both candidates have websites where you can go and read their predictions. But it is important to realize they can say anything. Actions speak louder than words. The fortunate thing is our country has a system of checks and balances so hopefully no one can get too out of control.
I won't vote third party. I want my vote to count here in swing state Florida.
I will be able to early vote in less then two weeks.
My decision will be based on who I think will be the best at handling the major issues that will benefit our country as a whole.
In in the past, I have thought about who is trying to promote their religious agenda. I think about who will be able to make the tough decisions when you have threats from foreign leaders. Who will respond the best when a crisis hits. Who will stand up best under the enormous pressure that faces a president of the greatest country of the world. Who will promote fulfillment of our obligations to our military, active and retired, to our retirees, to the working class?
This is election is particularly tricky, but I think it is possible not to get caught up in knee jerk reactions to what the media is promoting with this 24 hour news cycle. Both candidates have websites where you can go and read their predictions. But it is important to realize they can say anything. Actions speak louder than words. The fortunate thing is our country has a system of checks and balances so hopefully no one can get too out of control.
I won't vote third party. I want my vote to count here in swing state Florida.
That makes sense. I do feel your vote counts equally if you vote for one of the two other candidates. The Chicago Tribune endorsed the libertarian candidate. They state, "Can either win? Not this time. But that's no reason Americans disgusted with the major party choices have to settle on either. It's not "wasting your vote," as the old bromide says, to cast a ballot for a long-shot candidate because he or she offers something valuable that mainstream candidates don't. Attracting voters is how small parties get bigger.A strong showing by Stein, Johnson or both might not transform America's political landscape. But it could push a reassessment of old policies that have acquired immunity from reform. It could put provocative new ideas on the national agenda.'
A friend of mine, an armchair SJW says that voting 3rd party is easy if you have white privilege.
Of course it is. Privileged white people can vote for any party that pleases them, while people of color are excoriated as traitors if they stray from the donkey party.
Considered that way, voting one's conscience is a sort of white person's luxury item, like pumpkin spice lattes. In fact, a scholar at British Columbia has published a piece on "The Perilous Whiteness of Pumpkins", exposing the insidious role of cucurbitaceae as a symbol of oppression. Do you think Donald Trump's orange hue is some kind of accident of nature?
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/441011/pumpkin-spice-lattes-white-girl-privelege
To me, it would make more sense voting your conscience for a 3rd party candidate, if it appeared they were anywhere near possible in terms of votes. I just can't believe their present 2-3% could win in the end.
To me, it would make more sense voting your conscience for a 3rd party candidate, if it appeared they were anywhere near possible in terms of votes. I just can't believe their present 2-3% could win in the end.
I see voting my conscience in this election as voting for a third or fourth party candidate. The two-party system is too corrupt.
Lots of good ideas started out with low percentages, and then the ideas grow, but not if people feel defeated before they start, by a false schema of a rigged system.
I understand Tybee.......but this election seems different. I would feel better doing that if there weren't a violent/narcissist who could be our leader if I voted my conscience.......
ToomuchStuff
10-13-16, 11:40am
I don't see how not voting (for the lesser of 2 weevils), sends any kind of message. Someone will win....because of the people who have the strongest egos. What kind of message will be sent? If it caused a no-election-at-all, then a message would be sent........but I don't see how not voting in this case would send any kind of message at all.
From info from Bae's post...Bad choices at the polls can result in unjust laws, needless wars, and calamitous economic policies. Brennan shows why voters have duties to make informed decisions in the voting booth, to base their decisions on sound evidence for what will create the best possible policies, and to promote the common good rather than their own self-interest. They must vote well--or not vote at all. Brennan explains why voting is not necessarily the best way for citizens to exercise their civic duty, and why some citizens need to stay away from the polls to protect the democratic process from their uninformed, irrational, or immoral votes. I take this to mean to vote for the best person you actually has a chance of winning, otherwise ... read above.
From Iris Lilies post..My vote for not Hilary or Trump sends a message to both parties. They could care less, at the end it is a mute point. Who cares.... they will be in power and make the decisions.
To the best of my knowledge, only one state, Nevada, has a "none of the above" option. Other states have no choice for "no confidence" in either the Dem or Repub candidate, other then to not vote, or vote third party. If that changed, I think you would see a bigger turn out, and as in Nevada, someone would still win. People saying those that don't vote should have no say, are blindly forgetting that, as well as the fact that the election has consequences to those that turn voting age, AFTER the election, as well as Amendments 1, and 4. I see it as sad, that after the election based on Amendment 1 "to petition the government for a redress of grievances", it would be easier for the citizens to make a petition calling for their resignation, then it would writing in none of the above. (laws in many states mean those get disqualified/thrown out)
To the best of my knowledge, only one state, Nevada, has a "none of the above" option. Other states have no choice for "no confidence" in either the Dem or Repub candidate, other then to not vote, or vote third party. If that changed, I think you would see a bigger turn out, and as in Nevada, someone would still win. People saying those that don't vote should have no say, are blindly forgetting that, as well as the fact that the election has consequences to those that turn voting age, AFTER the election, as well as Amendments 1, and 4. I see it as sad, that after the election based on Amendment 1 "to petition the government for a redress of grievances", it would be easier for the citizens to make a petition calling for their resignation, then it would writing in none of the above. (laws in many states mean those get disqualified/thrown out)
We had a fairly vicious and ultimately unsuccessful recall election for Wisconsin's governor a few years back. I think that system works better because it has real consequences for politicians. "None" seems like just a showier way of not voting at all.
ToomuchStuff
10-14-16, 1:50am
We had a fairly vicious and ultimately unsuccessful recall election for Wisconsin's governor a few years back. I think that system works better because it has real consequences for politicians. "None" seems like just a showier way of not voting at all.
In Nevada it won twice by what I read. What it does is provide feedback and statistics. Until that option causes something like candidates to be rejected and either a try again, or next in line in the primary (which I am not sure would be better), it may be the best of the lack of options.
flowerseverywhere
10-14-16, 6:36am
That makes sense. I do feel your vote counts equally if you vote for one of the two other candidates. The Chicago Tribune endorsed the libertarian candidate. They state, "Can either win? Not this time. But that's no reason Americans disgusted with the major party choices have to settle on either. It's not "wasting your vote," as the old bromide says, to cast a ballot for a long-shot candidate because he or she offers something valuable that mainstream candidates don't. Attracting voters is how small parties get bigger.A strong showing by Stein, Johnson or both might not transform America's political landscape. But it could push a reassessment of old policies that have acquired immunity from reform. It could put provocative new ideas on the national agenda.'
i've been thinking about this. There is no way that both the Republican and Democratic parties haven't gotten the message. The electorate is clearly displeased with both choices. There are so many really good candidates on both sides, but who is going to run now and put their family through this? I don't think there is a person on the planet who has never said or done things they have not regretted, at the very least something could be taken out of context. I think the major parties have not only gotten the message, they realize there is a lot of work to do.
So many republicans have not endorsed or reversed their endorsement for Trump and even said critical things about their candidate how in the world is he ever going to be able to work with congress?
Here is the real kicker. We have a black man who has Been at the helm for eight years. Some of the things said about him (birther, he is going to shred the second amendment, he is Muslim and wants sharia law etc) were mean and misinformed. You can disagree with his policies, but he has shown the world a calm and well spoken demeanor. He has not had scandals. He has a very high approval rating and his wife is well loved. He has had republicans publicly say no matter what he wants we will oppose. Look at their approval rating. That is no way to be a representative of your constituents. How about in both parties saying we will look at each issue, regardless of who has proposed or endorsed it, and either work to bring it to the middle or propose legislation that is more acceptable. How many politicians talk about the affordable care act with "repeal and replace" but they never say with what. Propose something better to get rid of the bad parts and expand on the good parts.
In order to truly be a good politician you need to know the law. You need to respect all of the citizens. You need to have a vision that includes all your citizens. You need to understand it is not about you. For example: Are you listening Chris Christie? You are great in a crisis but not above the law in day to day affairs. It is not about what Grover Norquist wants. It is about upholding the law of this great land and making it a little better.
I truly hope hope when this is all over people get more involved in getting the big money out of politics and holding their candidates more accountable. There is going to be a lot of healing to do on both sides of the aisle.
Ultralight
10-14-16, 7:57am
The GOP and the Dems don't care much about the message they have received. They know they will more or less alternate holding the major offices (president, senate) and the ones that don't alternate are just solid one way or the other ad fairly evenly distributed.
As a result they don't care about the displeased electorate. Because if you don't vote for one or the other of them you are wasting your vote. And people believe them.
It is a twisted system that I cynically laugh at.
catherine
10-14-16, 8:13am
I truly hope hope when this is all over people get more involved in getting the big money out of politics and holding their candidates more accountable. There is going to be a lot of healing to do on both sides of the aisle.
Yes... I agree with everything you said, flowerseverywhere. Get the money out of politics. Hold the candidates more accountable. And I also agree that Obama has come out of this maintaining dignity and respect. And despite what the GOP says, he's really accomplished a lot--as you said, not perfectly maybe, and sometimes he's had to just do it, and it has all been done while the bullies in the schoolyard were singularly intent on just beating each other up.
I was very moved by Michelle Obama's speech yesterday.
She voiced what so many women I know are feeling.
Thank, you, Michelle.
I was very moved by Michelle Obama's speech yesterday.
She voiced what so many women I know are feeling.
Thank, you, Michelle.
The only thing that can save America now is gridlock.
Very good post, Flowerseverywhere!
i've been thinking about this. There is no way that both the Republican and Democratic parties haven't gotten the message. The electorate is clearly displeased with both choices. There are so many really good candidates on both sides, but who is going to run now and put their family through this? I don't think there is a person on the planet who has never said or done things they have not regretted, at the very least something could be taken out of context. I think the major parties have not only gotten the message, they realize there is a lot of work to do.
So many republicans have not endorsed or reversed their endorsement for Trump and even said critical things about their candidate how in the world is he ever going to be able to work with congress?
Here is the real kicker. We have a black man who has Been at the helm for eight years. Some of the things said about him (birther, he is going to shred the second amendment, he is Muslim and wants sharia law etc) were mean and misinformed. You can disagree with his policies, but he has shown the world a calm and well spoken demeanor. He has not had scandals. He has a very high approval rating and his wife is well loved. He has had republicans publicly say no matter what he wants we will oppose. Look at their approval rating. That is no way to be a representative of your constituents. How about in both parties saying we will look at each issue, regardless of who has proposed or endorsed it, and either work to bring it to the middle or propose legislation that is more acceptable. How many politicians talk about the affordable care act with "repeal and replace" but they never say with what. Propose something better to get rid of the bad parts and expand on the good parts.
In order to truly be a good politician you need to know the law. You need to respect all of the citizens. You need to have a vision that includes all your citizens. You need to understand it is not about you. For example: Are you listening Chris Christie? You are great in a crisis but not above the law in day to day affairs. It is not about what Grover Norquist wants. It is about upholding the law of this great land and making it a little better.
I truly hope hope when this is all over people get more involved in getting the big money out of politics and holding their candidates more accountable. There is going to be a lot of healing to do on both sides of the aisle.
That is a very good post, flowers. I wanted to offer everyone a chance to read a story a coworker of mine wrote in today's paper. It speaks alot to the angry white dude mentality:
http://www.columbian.com/news/2016/oct/13/sociologists-talk-at-wsuv-examines-why-white-men-are-so-angry/
frugal-one
10-14-16, 6:35pm
I will be able to early vote in less then two weeks.
My decision will be based on who I think will be the best at handling the major issues that will benefit our country as a whole.
In in the past, I have thought about who is trying to promote their religious agenda. I think about who will be able to make the tough decisions when you have threats from foreign leaders. Who will respond the best when a crisis hits. Who will stand up best under the enormous pressure that faces a president of the greatest country of the world. Who will promote fulfillment of our obligations to our military, active and retired, to our retirees, to the working class?
This is election is particularly tricky, but I think it is possible not to get caught up in knee jerk reactions to what the media is promoting with this 24 hour news cycle. Both candidates have websites where you can go and read their predictions. But it is important to realize they can say anything. Actions speak louder than words. The fortunate thing is our country has a system of checks and balances so hopefully no one can get too out of control.
I won't vote third party. I want my vote to count here in swing state Florida.
This is a great post and says it all IMO!!!
ToomuchStuff
10-15-16, 11:16am
The electorate is clearly displeased with both choices.
I haven't seen any of the electorate interviewed. I have seen the general voting public, interviewed. Not the same thing, as the electorate, is the electoral college members.
ApatheticNoMore
10-15-16, 12:08pm
I really don't see any straightforward means to get money out of politics. HOW? Pass a law? Well I don't think that's likely with the current congresspeople but the problem is even if a law were passed it could be ruled unconstitutional, these cases as we know have gone to the supreme court. Put someone on the supreme court who won't rule it unconstitutional? That's a slow process and it's not likely to happen with Clinton (she's so much about doing the bidding of her donors). So change the constitution with an amendment? That requires serious supermajorities, 2/3s of the congress to be proposed and 3/4 of the states to pass. Super-majorities are nearly impossible to get EVER. You'd be lucky to get a super-majority for mothers and apple pie or to agree that water was wet. If the people were that passionate as to pressure the powers that be for supermajorities, you'd have a revolution on your hands already (uh a political revolution) that might make the issue nearly irrelevant anyway (although what they hey if we have a real political revolution on our hands, lets get that amendment already). Some states have propositions on the ballot to pressure their state into taking a position on this though, so it's a step, but such a long shot to get super majorities for anything IMO.
What else is there? Well you can try to circumvent money in politics, that is the Bernie Sander's campaign, raising money from small donors and bypassing big money. The problem is is this ever going to be visible enough to get enough funding and votes on downticket races? If anyone is interested in that approach though it is going to be spinoffs from the Sander's movement that are probably most likely to be exploring it (I think Our Revolution is the official one, but I am sure there are others - very easy for such things to die when purely based on the now extinct Sander's candidacy but maybe there are enough people who want to vote for candidates supported entirely by small donors etc.).
catherine
10-15-16, 12:55pm
I really don't see any straightforward means to get money out of politics.
I agree. But it's discouraging to me the degree to which politicians are bought and sold--we are a corporatocracy in many ways. There was an article in the NYT today (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/10/well/eat/coke-and-pepsi-give-millions-to-public-health-then-lobby-against-it.html?em_pos=small&emc=edit_hh_20161014&nl=well&nl_art=0&nlid=57469847&ref=headline&te=1) about how Coke and Pepsi give scads of money to public health, but at the same time will spend money to quash programs that will actually help public health.
I'm not a proponent of some of the regulations and soda bans that have been discussed, but the idea that a corporation can step in and drive what should be a decision made solely by legislators and their constituents is troubling to me.
ToomuchStuff
10-15-16, 6:10pm
I don't see how not voting (for the lesser of 2 weevils), sends any kind of message. Someone will win....because of the people who have the strongest egos. What kind of message will be sent?
I finally took the time to go find the video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HeMGqTwWA6U
Does that help you any?
flowerseverywhere
10-15-16, 7:25pm
I haven't seen any of the electorate interviewed. I have seen the general voting public, interviewed. Not the same thing, as the electorate, is the electoral college members.,
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/electorate
i was using it as described in the dictionary, the people who vote in the election.
That makes sense. I do feel your vote counts equally if you vote for one of the two other candidates. The Chicago Tribune endorsed the libertarian candidate. They state, "Can either win? Not this time. But that's no reason Americans disgusted with the major party choices have to settle on either. It's not "wasting your vote," as the old bromide says, to cast a ballot for a long-shot candidate because he or she offers something valuable that mainstream candidates don't. Attracting voters is how small parties get bigger.A strong showing by Stein, Johnson or both might not transform America's political landscape. But it could push a reassessment of old policies that have acquired immunity from reform. It could put provocative new ideas on the national agenda.'
Maybe, except...how many of Ralph Nader's 'provocative new ideas' are we discussing now? How many are on the political agendas? Voting third party does not send any message, unless you write your feelings, along with your declared vote, in a letter to all the major party candidates. Of course that letter/e-mail will be deleted immediately as soon as they read your first sentence that states..."here is why I voted 3rd party". Not trying to be snarky, just trying to keep it real. I suppose you could go on facebook and talk about it, but then the 'message' you send will be in an echo chamber of others who agree with you. The rest will just dismiss your vote as irrelevant.
So, here is the real danger of voting 3rd party, which of course Trump supporters won't tell you while they encourage you to vote 3rd party. In order for a candidate, in this case Trump or Hillary, to win the election, they must get a majority of electoral votes which is 270. If a third party , or several third party candidates, draw off enough votes to prevent either Trump or Clinton to get to that magic number, then the decision goes to the House. Guess who controls the House and guess who they would pick. THIS is why people say a vote for third party is a vote for Trump because he has no way forward except if the House gets to decide. Hillary must get at least 270. I really don't think she will have any problem, but it's still important to realize why so many Trump supporters, closet or otherwise, are encouraging you to 'vote your conscience'. Don't be fooled. It's going to be either Hillary or Trump. Period. If Trump gets it by House selection, then all those 3rd party voters will have effectively voted for him. And they won't be able to spin it any other way cause we know HOW voting works.
I understand Tybee.......but this election seems different. I would feel better doing that if there weren't a violent/narcissist who could be our leader if I voted my conscience.......
I totally agree. 'voting your conscience' doesn't do a thing when they reverse Roe V Wade. And they would. Bet on it. Women would no longer have control of their own bodies and health care. they will have to go through Alan and his board of really really smart guys to get approval to get needed medical care, or even just make a personal choice. And considering how Trump feels about handicapped people (mocking them for his audiences entertainment) they can kiss any disability assistance, SS, healthcare, or acknowledgement goodbye. And don't forget privatization of SS and Medicare and the public education system cause...free market baby! And god forbid if any world leader insults the Don, or makes fun of him or anything. donald will have, in addition to AWESOME twitter skills (even with those tiny hands!) but the nuclear codes. (which are carried with him at all times... and no, he doesn't need to go through hoops to launch a war. The President can do it on a whim which is kinda why we want someone who isn't so thin skinned) In most races it isn't really all that important, but in this race, voting third party IS a vote for Trump.
This is hardly secret. It's been written about all over.
I thought the 12th amendment would allow the House to chose among the three top electoral vote winners. Trump is such a liability, I could see a GOP House electing a McMullin or Johnson if either managed to score any electoral votes at all, say by winning in a single state or a few votes on Nebraska or Maine.
It's pleasant to think about.
That is an interesting possibility, LDAHL.
I totally agree. 'voting your conscience' doesn't do a thing when they reverse Roe V Wade. And they would. Bet on it. Women would no longer have control of their own bodies and health care. they will have to go through Alan and his board of really really smart guys to get approval to get needed medical care, or even just make a personal choice. If there are two beating hearts involved in the "personal choice", I don't think it unreasonable for both to have a voice.
If there are two beating hearts involved in the "personal choice", I don't think it unreasonable for both to have a voice.
It's beyond unreasonable. A wad of human protoplasm is not a person. People are post-birth entities.
It's beyond unreasonable. A wad of human protoplasm is not a person. People are post-birth entities.
We've heard lots of arguments in the past about who is and who isn't worthy of legal protections or who is entitled to be heard and who has no such right. It has never ended well.
We've heard lots of arguments in the past about who is and who isn't worthy of legal protections or who is entitled to be heard and who has no such right. It has never ended well.
If we're discussing people (as opposed to collections of human cells) like African Americans and women, I'd say the fact that they have full human status and rights now is a Very Good Thing.
ETA: So in that case, ended very well indeed. But I know there are some who feel emancipating both was a mistake.
But I know there are some who feel emancipating both was a mistake.You should show them the error of their ways at every opportunity. It's the right thing to do.
This is hardly secret. It's been written about all over.
I thought the 12th amendment would allow the House to chose among the three top electoral vote winners. Trump is such a liability, I could see a GOP House electing a McMullin or Johnson if either managed to score any electoral votes at all, say by winning in a single state or a few votes on Nebraska or Maine.
It's pleasant to think about.
But considering how hesitant many in the house are of speaking out against trump, are you really so sure they would take a better path? Personally I would expect, in that situation, that the republicans in the house would take the pathetic choice of choosing trump in the hopes of being able to impeach him as soon as humanly possible afterwards. After all then they get VP Voldemort as the new president.
But considering how hesitant many in the house are of speaking out against trump, are you really so sure they would take a better path? Personally I would expect, in that situation, that the republicans in the house would take the pathetic choice of choosing trump in the hopes of being able to impeach him as soon as humanly possible afterwards. After all then they get VP Voldemort as the new president.
In this unlikely event, I think a dump Trump scenario would be more likely than your bait-and-switch option, if only due to the uncertainty of grounds for impeachment being available.
If House Republicans are placed in the predicament of choosing between two major-party candidates, one of whom insults their values and the other affronts their principles, I think a Kobayashi Maru option isn't inconceivable.
If we're discussing people (as opposed to collections of human cells) like African Americans and women, I'd say the fact that they have full human status and rights now is a Very Good Thing.
ETA: So in that case, ended very well indeed. But I know there are some who feel emancipating both was a mistake.
I don't think it was a mistake for the Republican Party to end slavery or bring about women's suffrage.
As to whether your "wad of human protoplasm" is a human being shortly after exiting the birth canal and medical waste shortly before: I think it's possible for reasonable people to hold differing views and vote accordingly. I don't think at this point that there are that many minds likely to change.
I don't think it was a mistake for the Republican Party to end slavery or bring about women's suffrage.
As to whether your "wad of human protoplasm" is a human being shortly after exiting the birth canal and medical waste shortly before: I think it's possible for reasonable people to hold differing views and vote accordingly. I don't think at this point that there are that many minds likely to change.
Third-trimester abortions are rarely performed and generally illegal unless there's a valid medical reason for them, so the idea of human being/medical waste is hyperbole.
Most abortions are first trimester, when "collection of human cells" might be an appropriate description. And I agree that minds aren't likely to change unless you or someone close to you has to make that difficult decision.
Teacher Terry
10-22-16, 4:14pm
Jane is right. They are taking a clump of cells and not killing a baby. The person that carries the cells that will become a baby is the only one qualified to make that choice. I had a good friend that had 3 grown kids young and got raped at 40 and ended up pregnant with twins. She had a first trimester abortion. So she should have been forced to carry them to term? I think not!
I don't think it was a mistake for the Republican Party to end slavery or bring about women's suffrage.
....
I remember when the Republican Party was an honorable one--when conservation meant land and wildlife, and not merely the maintaining of power and blocking any attempt to move forward. I hope to see it brought back to its former glory. Maybe that fellow in Utah (McMullin?) is a start.
I remember when the Republican Party was an honorable one--when conservation meant land and wildlife, and not merely the maintaining of power and blocking any attempt to move forward. I hope to see it brought back to its former glory. Maybe that fellow in Utah (McMullin?) is a start.
Much as we might disagree on when a human becomes a human, I would suspect we have very different ideas on what "moving forward" means.
I suspect one of the hallmarks of the likely Clinton Administration will be battles over constitutional issues. She has made it pretty clear that the the Bill of Rights requires some editing and that the Supreme Court should be more of a sort of legislative body "to help people" than an arbiter of how the constitution applies in any particular case. In that case, I would see "blocking any attempt to move forward" as the very definition of political honor.
It's obvious to this observer that reasonable minds can, and do, disagree on the meaning of the Constitution--as witness many 5-4 decisions (now 4-4, eventually who knows...). The Right's constant assertion that they, and only they, have a lock on The Truth regarding constitutional matters is plainly fatuous. I would love to hear the Founding Father's take on the Second Amendment, for example.
It's obvious to this observer that reasonable minds can, and do, disagree on the meaning of the Constitution--as witness many 5-4 decisions (now 4-4, eventually who knows...). The Right's constant assertion that they, and only they, have a lock on The Truth regarding constitutional matters is plainly fatuous. I would love to hear the Founding Father's take on the Second Amendment, for example.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776
"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776
"To disarm the people...s the most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, [I]The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adooption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788
"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
- George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788
“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
- Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."
- Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778
"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
- Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788
"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
- Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833
As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
- Tench Coxe, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789
Teacher Terry
10-23-16, 6:11pm
I am definitely for the right to bear arms. Our founding fathers could not envision the automatic weapons where you can kill tons of people in such a fast time period. Those are the weapons that should be outlawed.
I am definitely for the right to bear arms. Our founding fathers could not envision the automatic weapons where you can kill tons of people in such a fast time period. Those are the weapons that should be outlawed.
They are, although most people don't understand the difference between an automatic weapon and a semi-automatic weapon.
But even at that, based upon the founder's inability to foresee future technology, would you limit free speech as it regards to electronic communications due to shouts of 'Fire' reaching more people?
I am definitely for the right to bear arms. Our founding fathers could not envision the automatic weapons where you can kill tons of people in such a fast time period. Those are the weapons that should be outlawed.
When the Constitution was written, the founders envisioned and provided for civilian ownership of cannon-armed naval vessels - the strategic weapon of the day, capable of reducing harbor cities to rubble. Our naval strategy was based on this for many years, which is why the US didn't signed the Treaty of Paris in 1856. I don't think they would have had issues with the small arms we have today. (And if you look into the history of firearms, you will find that repeating small arms existed at the time, had been used in battle, and were not unknown to educated folks of the era.)
When the Constitution was written, the founders envisioned and provided for civilian ownership of cannon-armed naval vessels - the strategic weapon of the day, capable of reducing harbor cities to rubble. Our naval strategy was based on this for many years, which is why the US didn't signed the Treaty of Paris in 1856. I don't think they would have had issues with the small arms we have today. (And if you look into the history of firearms, you will find that repeating small arms existed at the time, had been used in battle, and were not unknown to educated folks of the era.)
So why don't we have civilian ownership of cannon-armed naval vessels now - or the 21st century equivalents (tanks, fighter jets, missles, etc.)?
So why don't we have civilian ownership of cannon-armed naval vessels now - or the 21st century equivalents (tanks, fighter jets, missles, etc.)?
"We"? :-)
You might want to familiarize yourself with the law.... It's just a matter of paperwork, bother, and money, more-or-less, if you are a law-abiding citizen. I have pintle-mounts for belt-fed Browning machine guns one one of my boats... And I have a modern-era 20mm cannon... If you have to ask though, you probably can't afford one. Much like an 18th-century naval vessel - a bit pricey for the casual owner...
Haven't seen a lot of crime committed in the USA with artillery pieces.
So why don't we have civilian ownership of cannon-armed naval vessels now - or the 21st century equivalents (tanks, fighter jets, missles, etc.)?Because the government fears the people and most folks can't afford to purchase, much less maintain, a fighter jet.
"We"? :-)
You might want to familiarize yourself with the law.... It's just a matter of paperwork, bother, and money, more-or-less, if you are a law-abiding citizen. I have pintle-mounts for belt-fed Browning machine guns one one of my boats... And I have a modern-era 20mm cannon... If you have to ask though, you probably can't afford one. Much like an 18th-century naval vessel - a bit pricey for the casual owner...
Haven't seen a lot of crime committed in the USA with artillery pieces.
That is why I was asking someone I thought was likely a much more informed source on the subject than I am - but apparently that wasn't the right thing to do.
That is why I was asking someone I thought was likely a much more informed source on the subject than I am - but apparently that wasn't the right thing to do.
I believe I answered your question. Such things are still allowed, more-or-less.
Because the government fears the people and most folks can't afford to purchase, much less maintain, a fighter jet.
I have a friend here who owns 15-20 military aircraft, including a few jets. He is however a billionaire.
I have several friends here who have significant pieces of armored fighting vehicles in their barns/garages. I'm going to get 1-2 myself once I build a new barn on one of my properties, probably older British pieces, though there is some really nice Soviet-bloc armor on the market cheap now.
A couple of us almost bought one of the older British carriers that was being surplused off by a South American nation a few years back, but as it was still located down there and had empty fuel bunkers, the logistics/cost of getting it up here for our project made it an unattractive deal.
flowerseverywhere
10-24-16, 5:22am
I have a friend here who owns 15-20 military aircraft, including a few jets. He is however a billionaire.
I have several friends here who have significant pieces of armored fighting vehicles in their barns/garages. I'm going to get 1-2 myself once I build a new barn on one of my properties, probably older British pieces, though there is some really nice Soviet-bloc armor on the market cheap now.
A couple of us almost bought one of the older British carriers that was being surplused off by a South American nation a few years back, but as it was still located down there and had empty fuel bunkers, the logistics/cost of getting it up here for our project made it an unattractive deal.
is this just for the purpose of collecting? I have seen some unbelievable displays of guns, armor and weapons in various museums around the word from private collections.
i suddenly remember an old movie " the Russians are coming". It was based off the coast of New England on an island and everyone was convinced they were being attacked and running around the island with old military helmets and old guns. I was living on an east coast island at the time I saw it, it was hilarious. But I doubt that applies here
back to the Donald.
It's obvious to this observer that reasonable minds can, and do, disagree on the meaning of the Constitution--as witness many 5-4 decisions (now 4-4, eventually who knows...). The Right's constant assertion that they, and only they, have a lock on The Truth regarding constitutional matters is plainly fatuous. I would love to hear the Founding Father's take on the Second Amendment, for example.
I don't think it's so much a disagreement on the Constitution's meaning as it is pushing for desired outcomes in spite of it. I think Hillary is clear on the meaning of, say, the First Amendment. She just doesn't like it and wants to change it.
I think Hillary is clear on the meaning of, say, the First Amendment. She just doesn't like it and wants to change it.
I have come to the conclusion that most of the people complaining about Citizens United and wanting to pack the Court to overturn the decision, or pass a Constitutional Amendment to do so, have never actually *read* the decision. Or perhaps they simply don't like the First Amendment.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.