Buy books by AWers

 

Welcome to the AbsoluteWrite Water Cooler! Please read The Newbie Guide To Absolute Write

Page 4 of 65 FirstFirst 12345678910142954 ... LastLast
Results 76 to 100 of 1604

Thread: *Sigh*

  1. #76
    Treguna Makoidees Trecorum SadisDee raburrell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    MA
    Posts
    6,889
    Okay, on the link - a bit of explanation would've helped in that post, if you want to add it in for others who read this later.
    I think this one addresses the same data, but provides a bit more detail: http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin.../#7d81f959119d.

    fwiw, I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other.
    In the Giant Lurking Cloud of Potential Arrgh. (™ Clovia)
    Website • Facebook • Twitter
    WIPs: TRT, AAIE Completed: At Shutter Speed • The Gospel Tomb • The Stay-Behind Girls

  2. #77
    Your Genial Uncle Absolute Sage James D. Macdonald's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    25,396
    Quote Originally Posted by blacbird View Post
    If Trump winds up with, say, 46% on the first ballot, he is not nominated, by party rules, and then, by party rules, it goes to a second ballot and all delegate commitments are erased.
    Not 100% after the first ballot, but as subsequent ballots happen more and more commitments get erased until it's a total free-for-all.
    As for "superdelegates", that's something the other party (Democrats) have to answer for, and I agree with you that it's a travesty of fair electoral process.
    Not that a fair electoral process is necessarily part of selecting a nominee. Used to be that parties got together and came up with a nominee by the backroom-deal method (which is what gave us Warren G. Harding because he "looked presidential"). There've been a lot of different systems for picking delegates to the national conventions over the years.

    Either or both parties could select their nominees by playing musical chairs (or anything else that they wanted), and hey! there would be our nominee. Anyone remember 1968, when Hubert Humphrey won the Democratic nomination despite not having won one single primary?

    No one knows what'll be the process next time around, if the current primary system (which dates to the nineties) turns out to be broken. Or more broken than anyone suspected.

  3. #78
    New Fish; Learning About Thick Skin
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    3
    I am right there with you!

  4. #79
    Treguna Makoidees Trecorum SadisDee raburrell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    MA
    Posts
    6,889
    Quote Originally Posted by James D. Macdonald View Post
    Not 100% after the first ballot, but as subsequent ballots happen more and more commitments get erased until it's a total free-for-all.

    Not that a fair electoral process is necessarily part of selecting a nominee. Used to be that parties got together and came up with a nominee by the backroom-deal method (which is what gave us Warren G. Harding because he "looked presidential"). There've been a lot of different systems for picking delegates to the national conventions over the years.

    Either or both parties could select their nominees by playing musical chairs (or anything else that they wanted), and hey! there would be our nominee. Anyone remember 1968, when Hubert Humphrey won the Democratic nomination despite not having won one single primary?

    No one knows what'll be the process next time around, if the current primary system (which dates to the nineties) turns out to be broken. Or more broken than anyone suspected.
    This is pie-in-the-sky, and I'll admit upfront it'd be as likely to lead to chaos as not, but I wish we got rid of the whole primary system all together. The people who vote in the primaries tend to be more hardcore partisans, which is why everyone goes running for the extremes during the primary season. Then by the time the rest of the country starts paying attention, they look up and go 'whu? who the hell are these jerks and why do I have to pick one of them?'

    basically, I'd like to see us go more European-style democracy. Not that it doesn't have its own issues, but... yeah.
    In the Giant Lurking Cloud of Potential Arrgh. (™ Clovia)
    Website • Facebook • Twitter
    WIPs: TRT, AAIE Completed: At Shutter Speed • The Gospel Tomb • The Stay-Behind Girls

  5. #80
    Pain in the writing wrist Cramp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    688
    Quote Originally Posted by Vince524 View Post
    People with that much money use it for their business and other investments.

    In addition, the point is, who gets to say what amount of $ is too much for someone to have? Why does the gov't get to decide, you have earned too much, we'll take the rest.
    I suppose because in our world and economy, money (wealth) is power. And we (or I, at least) believe that we should attempt to distribute power as evenly as possible. To not have it accumulate and solidify into the hands of the few.
    My Fantasy-Thriller novella: Maki and the Mysterious Murder

    Available on Kindle:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00...=1&*entries*=0
    http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B...=1&*entries*=0

  6. #81
    Natural Born Criminal nighttimer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Occupied America
    Posts
    10,620
    Quote Originally Posted by MacAllister View Post
    I'm going to rant just a bit.

    I loathe presidential election years, because this kind of situation happens over and over and over, and we have months more to look forward to.

    I hate that the politics room is currently skewed so far to the left - to the point where, if there was ANY way I could do so, credibly, I'd be posting from a much more conservative point of view than I typically vote. I've seen the political pendulum swing back and forth in here, over the years, and honestly when I feel best about the room is when I'm getting equal amounts of hate mail from both ends of the spectrum complaining about our obvious bias against [liberals][conservatives].

    I'm not getting that mail from the left-wingers in here, right now. I'm getting the sneering, smug, self-congratulatory sorts of messages that make me wince and want to distance myself from the left-wing, too, honestly.

    Where on earth are the common sense, don't-spend-more-than-you-make, mind-yer-own-beeswax, live-and-let-live, support-small-businesses, reward-entrepreneurship sorts of politicians? We don't seem to have any, on either side, any more.

    How stupid do we, as Americans, want to get? Do we WANT to have a system where everyone we can possibly elect is already bought and paid for by multinational corporate conglomerates, because those are the only people who can afford to run? Do we really want to be ruthlessly strip-mined for our money, our knowledge, and our labor by those same corporations?

    On a level, I can't blame people who want to vote for Trump just because they think he's not a puppet with his strings being pulled by corporate overlords -- I personally think they're missing that the guy IS a corporate puppet master -- he's apparently just decided to cut out having to pay for middle-men, like Senators and press-secretaries and such.

    I can't blame people who want to burn the whole system down, either. They don't feel represented, because guess what? They're not represented. None of us are -- not really. Oh, they throw us a few bones: Same-sex marriage? Sure. Makes for a more stable tax base, and honesty, hardly anyone really cares anymore, besides the ultra-religious. Go to war on birth-control and abortion, and talk about Jesus a lot? You betcha -- at least, if it'll make folks feel like there's someone in government actually fighting for the things they care about, too.

    Meanwhile, the more ground we're actually losing, economically, educationally, socially, culturally, and artistically.

    Ugh. I hate presidential election years in the politics room.
    I think you need to pet a puppy, scratch a kitten or go for a walk in the park and let the the fresh spring breeze hit you in the face.

    I'm a politics junkie and I presidential election years in the politics room. It's the most wonderful time of the year. The apathetic get concerned, the sleepers awake, and the disengaged engage. It's not just spring training for pitchers and catchers y'know?

    Sure, it would be nice to have more conservatives getting in on the fun, but what can be done about it? Recruit a few? Invite some of the dormant ones to come back? Hang a "Conservatives Wanted" sign on the front door of the site?

    The nature of American politics is they are far too long and way too contentious. Today, Donald Trump went after Ted Cruz's wife.threatening to "spill the beans" on her. Cruz fired back calling Trump "a coward." Who needs this shit? It's just tedious to follow all the crap, it's a turn-off, and its embarrassing for the rest of the world to see how the Stupid Season is dominating this election.

    Yet, maybe we're jaded because we're all adults here. Maybe that's the problem. Maybe we need a fresher, a younger perspective to realize while things are bad, we are not as hopelessly hosed as it seems. For some this is all brand new and brimming with the hope of a better tomorrow.

    The moment for many Americans is seared into their memories. More than 71 million people watched election night on network and cable TV on November 4, 2008—the highest-rated election coverage in almost three decades—and nearly a quarter-million crowded into Grant Park in Chicago to await the results with anticipation. That night, a centuries-old taboo was broken, and a new era in U.S. politics was ushered in with Barack Obama’s sweeping triumph. Beyond the political ramifications, America had elected its first black president and the reactions were swift and dramatic.

    Black Americans turned out to vote in unprecedented numbers, galvanized by the historic quality of a presidential race that could possibly put a black family in the White House. Representative John Lewis of Georgia, a civil-rights-movement icon who protested with Martin Luther King, thought of the slain leader as Obama’s first win became clear. As Lewis told NPR the next day, “I felt like shouting, but I just said, ‘Hallelujah, hallelujah,’ ‘cause I knew Martin Luther King himself was looking down on us saying, ‘Hallelujah.’”

    The worldwide response was equally jubilant. Obama’s election was seen as a remarkable shift signaling a more inclusive America. Even outgoing president George Bush commended the president-elect on the significance of his victory, noting that Obama represented “a triumph of the American story … Many of our citizens thought they would never live to see that day.”

    Obama’s electoral landslide was momentous for many because of what it represented about America’s past, burdened by centuries of slavery, segregation, and racial prejudice. Yet for an entire segment of the public without that frame of reference—namely, pre-adolescents who came of age over the last eight years—the Obama presidency is still groundbreaking. I recently gathered a racially and ethnically diverse group of students from Argyle Middle School in Silver Spring, Maryland, to discuss the first black U.S. president and to get their take on whether Obama has changed this generation’s views of the country’s possibilities or shaped their own aspirations.

    Melinda D. Anderson: In 2008, when he was elected, there was a lot written about President Obama being the first black president. What does it mean to you that America elected a black man to be its president?

    Josh Frost, 13: It shows we can change, because it shows that not only white people can be in the government. More people of different races would like to be president now, because Barack Obama became president. Before there were only white presidents, so they probably thought they had to be like them to do the job.

    Avi Kedia, 12: It shows something [about] America, that somebody from a different race, other than white, can win the presidential election. We shouldn't base the presidents just on race, we should base it on their actual skill. But it shows that somebody from a different race can rise up and go against what everybody else says and win. I could be president if I really wanted to. I just have to push myself. And it doesn’t matter if I’m Indian. It opens the door for everything really. If someone black can be president after it forever being white presidents, maybe a woman can be president. Or we can have a gay president. None of that even matters anymore.

    Anderson: When you think about the fact that a black family now lives in the White House, does it change your view of what is possible in this country?

    Clare Doyle, 13: My first memory of Barack Obama is my dad telling me that the first African American was going to be the [Democratic nominee] for president. That’s progress. We didn’t discriminate by race; he was judged by his ability. We used to think that just because someone was a different color, that they were [inferior], but his election shows we can all be judged the same. Instead of doing it by race.

    Anderson: There was a social-media campaign last month called “Obama and Kids” where people shared pictures of President Obama with children around the country, to illustrate how kids seem to connect to him. Do you feel connected to this president at all?

    Kedia: He’s like your average type of guy. He’s not like a politician, someone with a white wig or something. He’s the only president we’ve ever known—and all of those kids grew up with him. So that’s the person they look up to.

    Doyle: He seems more laid back like normal people, because he’s always outside playing with his daughters or playing basketball when he’s not working. He’s more like someone we could talk to or someone we would want to meet.

    Ramirez: We feel more connected to him because we’ve grown up with him. It's like having a family member that you don't really meet. I found it funny that kids go to the White House for trick-or-treating. Michelle Obama has had sleepovers [with Girl Scouts]. Because normally when you think of the White House you think of a big mansion or something, but what I actually think of is a regular house where you'd be lucky to meet one of your unknown family members, and you get the feeling that they’re actually going to welcome you.

    Anderson: We’re currently in the middle of an election season to decide who will be the next president. President Obama’s term is ending—he now has about 10 months left in office. Does it stir up any thoughts or emotions knowing that his term is winding down?

    Frost: I don’t know what to expect with a white president or a woman president. He’s the only president we remember. The biggest impact that he had wasn’t any laws he passed or anything like that. It was just being president. He brought a new race to [the nation’s highest office.]

    Kedia: Before Obama, it’s like there was some sort of barrier, and everybody was stuck under it. Only certain people could get through that barrier. When Obama became president, suddenly people thought, “Oh, the barrier is gone. Now we can climb.” That’s what his presidency meant to me. It’s like I have a chance now.
    It's hard to break through the noise to find the signal, but it's there. You just have to look hard for it.
    Last edited by nighttimer; 03-23-2016 at 08:44 PM.

  7. #82
    banned as an incurable tosspot
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    6,543
    It's actually very simple. If we want to complain about the interest groups, NRA, ACLU, NAACP, Occupy, whatever, let's have that argument. But when you, or I, or anyone tries to speak out as an individual, can we PLEASE respond as an individual? I, for example, no longer have faith that I can say word one about the 2nd Amendment without being tied to the NRA. Likewise, I don't have to equate Nighttimer with the NAACP to agree OR disagree with him about facets of the racism debate. Maybe NT likes that association. Doesn't mean that I have to presume it.

    I'm probably always going to be on the verge of trouble in this room, if not strongly enough to get into site-wide trouble. I consider myself a radical and an agitator. But I respect strong opinions even in opposition (ESPECIALLY? Perhaps). I enjoy them because I believe that political discussions are about living in and creating the world as we want it to be. That right there is about as important a motive as can exist. So if we're NOT passionate, to what end are these discussions? I recognize that there's 350 million other voices out there, just in the USA. And then if the discussion goes to global matters... That all but demands a loud voice, doesn't it?

  8. #83
    Back at it again. Teinz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    My favourite chair by the window.
    Posts
    2,339
    Quote Originally Posted by Shadow Dragon View Post
    At this point money isn't even money anymore. It's just points in an arcade machine and people want to see their initials among the top ten.

    @Zoombie, while money is power there are ways to use it beyond just buying whatever you want. You can invest it in ways to help people. I could see you in particular using it to invest in Native American communities to improve the poverty rate of them. Could also donate to causes. With that level of money you could just pick an area that's been hit by outsourcing or whatever, figure out what's needed to rebuild that area's local economy (hire experts if need be), and simply make it happen. Or invest in certain types of technology.
    I agree. They're playing a game. And money equals points. In a game, you can never have too many points. Especially if your opponent's got more of them.

    A Dutch journalist spend a couple of years in the City, talked to all sorts of bankers, laywers, brokers, etc, and wrote a book about it. They basically told him the same. There's a fierce competition going on who's able to rake in the most cash. And if they have to fuck over clients in order to win, they're gonna do it. They won't feel any guilt at all.

  9. #84
    Your Genial Uncle Absolute Sage James D. Macdonald's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    25,396
    Why we should scrap state primaries in the presidential race


    Over the past 225 years, America has changed how it selects its nominees many times. With the 2016 election season shaping up as one of the most chaotic in modern history, it’s time to cast off the last vestiges of our archaic nominating system and embrace more modern and egalitarian voting methods.

  10. #85
    Natural Born Criminal nighttimer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Occupied America
    Posts
    10,620
    Quote Originally Posted by robjvargas View Post
    It's actually very simple. If we want to complain about the interest groups, NRA, ACLU, NAACP, Occupy, whatever, let's have that argument. But when you, or I, or anyone tries to speak out as an individual, can we PLEASE respond as an individual? I, for example, no longer have faith that I can say word one about the 2nd Amendment without being tied to the NRA. Likewise, I don't have to equate Nighttimer with the NAACP to agree OR disagree with him about facets of the racism debate. Maybe NT likes that association. Doesn't mean that I have to presume it.
    Nighttimer is not affiliated with or associates with any interest groups of any kind. He has pondered joining the NAACP, but has demurred as he does not agree with some of their methods and beliefs.

    His last membership was with the National Association of Black Journalists (NABJ), but that came to an end after he got into a squabble over Al Sharpton getting his TV show on MSNBC and was publicly hung out to dry by the NABJ president who kissed Sharpton's ass to get him to attend the Philadelphia convention. Sharpton didn't show and Nighttimer was name-checked by both Keith Olbermann and Tom Joyner for questioning why Sharpton, and not a trained and experienced Black journalist got the MSNBC gig. After being publicly rebuked for his heresy, Nighttimer realized if was best for everyone if he wasn't part of professional organizations and interest groups.

    Nighttimer recalled too late the wise words of wisdom from George Carlin, I don't like ass kissers, flag wavers or team players. I like people who buck the system. Individualists. I often warn people: "Somewhere along the way, someone is going to tell you, 'There is no "I" in team.' What you should tell them is, 'Maybe not. But there is an "I" in independence, individuality and integrity.'" Avoid teams at all cost. Keep your circle small. Never join a group that has a name. If they say, "We're the So-and-Sos," take a walk. And if, somehow, you must join, if it's unavoidable, such as a union or a trade association, go ahead and join. But don't participate; it will be your death. And if they tell you you're not a team player, congratulate them on being observant .”


    Nighttimer is not a team player. He is not sad about that.

    Quote Originally Posted by robjvargas
    I'm probably always going to be on the verge of trouble in this room, if not strongly enough to get into site-wide trouble. I consider myself a radical and an agitator. But I respect strong opinions even in opposition (ESPECIALLY? Perhaps). I enjoy them because I believe that political discussions are about living in and creating the world as we want it to be. That right there is about as important a motive as can exist. So if we're NOT passionate, to what end are these discussions? I recognize that there's 350 million other voices out there, just in the USA. And then if the discussion goes to global matters... That all but demands a loud voice, doesn't it?
    Well, I think so, but then I'm a happy-go-lucky-go-along-to-get-along sort of guy who doesn't like being the center of attention or making waves, so don't take my opinion seriously.
    Last edited by nighttimer; 03-23-2016 at 09:10 PM.
    "I don’t know where we go from here because those of us who recognize the injustice are not the problem. Law enforcement, militarized and indifferent to black lives, is the problem."
    — Roxane Gay, Alton Sterling and When Black Lives Stop Mattering

    "To be black in America is to exist in haunting, mundane proximity to death at all moments."
    — Hannah Giorgis, I Am Tired Of Watching Black People Die


    Watch This Space


  11. #86
    practical experience, FTW cornflake's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    13,009
    Quote Originally Posted by Roxxsmom View Post
    This is my feeling too. I realized early on that I could never vote Republican, because as a party, their whole focus seemed to be on converting the country into a theocracy and telling me I was evil and sinful for being a woman who didn't want kids ever and still wanted to have (gasp) romantic relationships that included non-procreative sex. There's only so many times you can hear, "You make your choice when you open your legs" or, "Women are just different from men, and that's why you're not getting as far the professions society rewards most highly," without figuring that the people saying this are pretty hostile towards your pursuit of happiness.

    And the hostility towards the environment, science, unions, tax-supported safety nets and infrastructure etc. aren't endearing to me either.

    I'll add that I feel like the so-called "left" has actually moved pretty far to the right too, at least on economic issues (and as Mac said, much of their concern for marginalized groups is bone tossing).

    In my mind, the Dems have become what GOP used to be in some ways--pro business, giving lip service, at least, to the "little guy" and small business types, but they're not doing a whole lot to address the problem no one seems to want to discuss on either side of things--what is a culture where people's self esteem, identity, and value come from the work they do (Americans of all stripes loathe people we see as slackers) going to do in an economy where human labor is less and less necessary, even for jobs once considered safe?

    The free market isn't going to cut it for many, because it will result in small number of people (ones who just so happen to have the talent, interests and training that fit the current economy) will be making lots of money, while everyone else is competing for really low-wage, dead-end "would you like fries with that?" service jobs they'd get robots to do if it weren't for a ready supply of people who will work for minimum wage. The other option (explored by some of the people I know who aren't quite making ends meet) seems to be starting cottage industries that sell soap or jewelry on the internet.

    But Sander's solution of raising the minimum wage is just a band aid, temporary fix, because working at Wal-Mart or McDonalds still sucks, and if those wages get too high, then there will be a day where robotic labor will be cheaper. So we're in a vicious cycle where many Americans are shopping at places like Wal-Mart, which sell cheap goods manufactured abroad, because that's all they can afford. And he can't change technology and the economy back to a system where we needed thousands of reasonably skilled workers to run a factory instead of maybe a hundred.

    How do we fix problems like this?! Rethink our ideas about ownership? That may have to happen someday, but if it does, there's going to be a lot of ugliness first. Our cultural value of bootstrapping is very deeply entrenched, and not just with Americans most on the conservative end of the spectrum.

    Yes, but running a campaign costs more money than ever before, and running for president (and other higher offices too) is this long, drawn-out process that literally starts two years before the next presidential election.

    I think Citizens United made things a lot worse too. So far, the conservatives (because they're so pro big business) is better at gaining the support of corporate donors, but Democrats like Clinton are turning their hand to it also. Which means she can't be as hard on the banks (some of her largest donors) as many of us think she should be.

    We need two strong parties in this country--and yes, we need to be able to compromise. But in my lifetime, "compromise" seems to be moving us more and more to the right on issues like abortion, guns, taxes, education, the environment, and so on.

    Back in the 70s and 80s, conservatives were angry, because they felt like the country was moving more and more to the left. So there was the Reagan revolution. I'm wondering if we're now seeing anger that's a reaction to the success of that movement, but different groups/demographics (sanders versus trump supporters) are focusing their anger in different ways.

    Anger is seductive, but it rarely makes things better in the long run.
    I pretty much totally agree - especially about how the GOP moving so far right has pulled everything else along with it.

    Bill Maher, on his HBO show this week, ran videos of both Reagan and Bush 41 talking about undocumented workers. Both were talking about paths to citizenship and characterizing illegal residents as good, family-oriented people who want a better life for their families. If you just typed up the speeches without attribution and showed them to any current, or recent, Republican candidate, I have a feeling the speeches would be denounced as liberal.

    However, what we have now is, to those people, not nearly far enough. Remember Paul Ryan's budget? The endless denouncing of Mitt Romney's health care plan? All sense and reason has been left by the side of the road as the extremists motor on toward the chasm.

    Quote Originally Posted by raburrell View Post
    This is pie-in-the-sky, and I'll admit upfront it'd be as likely to lead to chaos as not, but I wish we got rid of the whole primary system all together. The people who vote in the primaries tend to be more hardcore partisans, which is why everyone goes running for the extremes during the primary season. Then by the time the rest of the country starts paying attention, they look up and go 'whu? who the hell are these jerks and why do I have to pick one of them?'

    basically, I'd like to see us go more European-style democracy. Not that it doesn't have its own issues, but... yeah.
    Is it not preferable that people actually interested and at least somewhat engaged, pick the candidates? I can't with the panels, close to the election, of voters on television who insist they're utterly uncommitted, and could vote for like, Bush or Kerry, who knows, or Obama or Romney, as if there's no discernible difference. That they don't understand the difference makes me want to strip them of their votes.

    Not that I think many Trump voters are informed (as Trump himself is not informed and has issued basically no policy proposals or coherent statements on things like foreign affairs), but they may be more informed than people who can't figure out the difference between Trump and Rodham in October, and you know those people will exist.

  12. #87
    Treguna Makoidees Trecorum SadisDee raburrell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    MA
    Posts
    6,889
    I can't say I have much sympathy for people who don't vote in the primaries and don't start paying attention until October or so, then complain about their choices in the general, but I do think our primary process is an exercise in catering to the fringe, and I don't think that's a good thing.
    In the Giant Lurking Cloud of Potential Arrgh. (™ Clovia)
    Website • Facebook • Twitter
    WIPs: TRT, AAIE Completed: At Shutter Speed • The Gospel Tomb • The Stay-Behind Girls

  13. #88
    banned as an incurable tosspot
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    6,543
    Quote Originally Posted by Roxxsmom View Post
    This is my feeling too. I realized early on that I could never vote Republican, because as a party, their whole focus seemed to be on converting the country into a theocracy and telling me I was evil and sinful for being a woman who didn't want kids ever and still wanted to have (gasp) romantic relationships that included non-procreative sex. There's only so many times you can hear, "You make your choice when you open your legs" or, "Women are just different from men, and that's why you're not getting as far the professions society rewards most highly," without figuring that the people saying this are pretty hostile towards your pursuit of happiness.
    Well, gee, that's sure to get Republicans to talk.

    Quote Originally Posted by Roxxsmom View Post
    And the hostility towards the environment, science, unions, tax-supported safety nets and infrastructure etc. aren't endearing to me either.
    And this. Republicans who (ostensibly) believe that the environment is far more resilient than alleged, are "hostile" to the environment.

    Not wrong. Hostile.

    There are tempers running at the top of the thermometer on all sides of the proverbial aisle. This kind of language doesn't resolve debates. It turns heels into tent spikes digging in hard.

  14. #89
    practical experience, FTW cornflake's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    13,009
    How is she, or anyone really, meant to take stuff like the recent Republican rape stuff (the 'shut down' 'real rape' etc. stuff), the Planned Parenthood defunding push, and all the rest?

    I mean saying Roxx is using language that won't get Republicans to talk or come to the table, or whatever - what would? I don't see any evidence anything would. Look at the law in Texas. What response helps the view that promotes that?

  15. #90
    Pain in the writing wrist Cramp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    688
    But, like, is it inaccurate? It might not be comfortable to hear, but sometimes the truth isn't nice.

    I mean, eventually you (in the general) have to take responsibility for the positions and practices of the Party that you allege to support. No one forces anyone to be a Republican or Democrat.
    My Fantasy-Thriller novella: Maki and the Mysterious Murder

    Available on Kindle:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00...=1&*entries*=0
    http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B...=1&*entries*=0

  16. #91
    banned as an incurable tosspot
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Second star on the right and on 'til morning.
    Posts
    11,042
    You as an individual person who happens to be a Republican might not fall under those labels or descriptions. Or you might. Your party most certainly does. You don't like those labels and descriptions? Don't call yourself a Republican or work to change your party's politics.

    Literally every single thing Roxx mentioned I hear from the majority of media Repubs/politicians, and from countless on the ground individuals. And worse. Oh, so much worse. Repubs may or may not be merely incorrect about the environment. But they are absolutely hostile on the women's rights front. Nastily and horrifically hostile.

  17. #92
    Moody Floridian Bunny Latina Bunny's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    3,800
    Quote Originally Posted by robjvargas View Post
    Well, gee, that's sure to get Republicans to talk.


    And this. Republicans who (ostensibly) believe that the environment is far more resilient than alleged, are "hostile" to the environment.

    Not wrong. Hostile.

    There are tempers running at the top of the thermometer on all sides of the proverbial aisle. This kind of language doesn't resolve debates. It turns heels into tent spikes digging in hard.
    Dude, it's nothing against you, specifically. I'm sure you're a great person.

    It's the party's high-ranking representatives that is a problem. The Republican party has high-ranking dudes that say really weird things like "women's bodies shut down during rape" and shit like that. All kinds of sexist, racist stuff. Also, anti-gay stuff as well. (Oh, yeah, and anti-immigrant stuff as well, which affects other people and families, etc.)

    How in the world is that kind of talk from representatives supposed to win over women, LGBT, and POC (and Hispanics), to the Republican side?

    Sure, the Democratic party has its own questionable people as well, but they're not as outright hostile or outright discriminating towards people like me compared to the other side.

    Still, if I had to choose which devil/evil, I would choose the one that is not purposely trying to hurt or take away my rights or insult my identity (at the moment).
    Last edited by Latina Bunny; 03-23-2016 at 10:44 PM.

  18. #93
    New kid...seven years ago! DancingMaenid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    5,002
    To be honest, I don't really care about talking with people who don't want me or other people to have equal rights or be treated with dignity. I don't see those topics as valid differences in opinion that deserve debate. If someone believed that slavery should be legal, would we feel obligated to give that point of view fair consideration? Why should I be obligated to try to empathize with why someone might want to discriminate against me, or why they hate me?
    A writing blog.

  19. #94
    banned as an incurable tosspot
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    6,543
    Quote Originally Posted by cornflake View Post
    How is she, or anyone really, meant to take stuff like the recent Republican rape stuff (the 'shut down' 'real rape' etc. stuff), the Planned Parenthood defunding push, and all the rest?
    The "real rape" comment out of (I believe) Missouri was condemned by both the state AND the national committees. I don't recall any equivocation, either.

    The GOP cannot unelect an elected official.

    So I think this proves my point, although via a converse path.

  20. #95
    banned as an incurable tosspot
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    6,543
    Quote Originally Posted by DancingMaenid View Post
    Why should I be obligated to try to empathize with why someone might want to discriminate against me, or why they hate me?
    Speaking just for myself, I don't expect empathy. But does that mean everyone in that person's "community" automatically wants the same?

  21. #96
    Moody Floridian Bunny Latina Bunny's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    3,800
    Quote Originally Posted by DancingMaenid View Post
    To be honest, I don't really care about talking with people who don't want me or other people to have equal rights or be treated with dignity. I don't see those topics as valid differences in opinion that deserve debate. If someone believed that slavery should be legal, would we feel obligated to give that point of view fair consideration? Why should I be obligated to try to empathize with why someone might want to discriminate against me, or why they hate me?
    ^This.

    It's not a little issue. It's a big issue for many of us (who aren't part of the "majority" population).

    What can the Republican party offer me in exchange for my rights (or even my identity or dignity) to be dismissed or taken away?
    Last edited by Latina Bunny; 03-23-2016 at 11:07 PM.

  22. #97
    practical experience, FTW cornflake's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    13,009
    Quote Originally Posted by robjvargas View Post
    Speaking just for myself, I don't expect empathy. But does that mean everyone in that person's "community" automatically wants the same?
    It's a political party, not a garden party. Of course there are Republicans who disagree with the loons in charge, but a political party has a platform, and leaders who espouse the party's position.

    I wouldn't think someone would say the Democratic Party doesn't all want fewer restrictions on abortion. Individual people have individual views, but choice is in the f'ing platform. That's what Democrats want. Thus, if someone calls themselves a Democrat, I presume they speak from that position, and I'm fine with people 'blaming' them for it.

  23. #98
    Treguna Makoidees Trecorum SadisDee raburrell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    MA
    Posts
    6,889
    Quote Originally Posted by robjvargas View Post
    The "real rape" comment out of (I believe) Missouri was condemned by both the state AND the national committees. I don't recall any equivocation, either.

    The GOP cannot unelect an elected official.

    So I think this proves my point, although via a converse path.
    Yet the Republican party still pushes legislation which forces doctors to lie to women who are seeking abortions, mandates transvaginal ultrasounds for abortions, even for rape victims, which is against medical guidelines regardless, etc. The party apparatus basically told members to shut up talking about rape, because it just about costs them an election every time they open their mouths. (There's a nice running list here: http://www.dayswithoutagoprapemention.com/)

    I certainly don't think that every Republican I meet shares those kind of views, or that even most do, but the party? Yeah.
    In the Giant Lurking Cloud of Potential Arrgh. (™ Clovia)
    Website • Facebook • Twitter
    WIPs: TRT, AAIE Completed: At Shutter Speed • The Gospel Tomb • The Stay-Behind Girls

  24. #99
    I've seen worse. SuperModerator ColoradoGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    The City Different
    Posts
    6,580
    Barney Frank (I know, a liberal’s liberal) said, “Government is those things we do together.” Framed that way, the debate becomes about what those things are and how we do them. America also has some deep and abiding strains of cognitive dissonance baked into its national psyche.

    We have a very long history of trying to deny there are things people need to do together for the good of all. It’s part of our foundational myth. This is particularly interesting in the history of the West. Yes, individuals set out on their own into the wilderness. But they would not have succeeded without the army to vanquish the Native Americans, railroad subsidies, federal water projects, free use of public lands, and many other things. This is a hard thing to confront and accept, so many of us don’t.

    We also have a long history of nativist antipathy to outsiders, a very flexible category with changing definitions. Yet, excepting Native Americans, of course we are a nation of outsiders, of immigrants.

    America has a long history of dissonance about just what it is. Many people think Reagan first described us as “a city on a hill.” Actually it was John Winthrop, one of the Puritan founders of Massachusetts, who called us that. We were to be an example to the world, to stay above it on our hill. Yet for the past century we have been highly interventionist in world politics, sometimes with good results, often with terrible outcomes. Many of us came to believe in a new paradigm that somehow we should bring the blessings of our way of life to the benighted rest of the world. Many others of us find this viewpoint abhorrent.

    I see the current political scene, particularly in the GOP, as dramatizing these perhaps irreconcilable tensions about those "things we do together.” In historical context, the closest period to now was the end of the (first) Gilded Age, say 1890-1910, with slopover into the FDR era after a pause in the 1920s. After appearing to be on a collision course with social turmoil, the ship righted itself. I hope it does so again.
    Last edited by ColoradoGuy; 03-24-2016 at 08:50 AM.
    "Think this through with me, let me know your mind.
    . . . what I want to know is, are you kind?"

    My books, website, and blog

  25. #100
    banned as an incurable tosspot
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Second star on the right and on 'til morning.
    Posts
    11,042
    Quote Originally Posted by robjvargas View Post
    The "real rape" comment out of (I believe) Missouri was condemned by both the state AND the national committees. I don't recall any equivocation, either.

    The GOP cannot unelect an elected official.

    So I think this proves my point, although via a converse path.
    And yet, he remained in the race and there were plenty of folks supporting him.

Page 4 of 65 FirstFirst 12345678910142954 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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