2016 Election
Ted Cruz wants a Constitutional Amendment holding the judges accountable to voters every eight years. What a clown.
Quote: EvenBobWhat do you think the point of all this
was? Gays are still not equal to non Gays.
They still can't get married in most major
churches. There's an amendment to the
constitution coming, that's where all this
will end. Yesterday was huge, but it was
just another step.
The delicious irony here is that the very same people who are terrified at this new perceived government intrusion into religion are usually the ones trying to impose their own brand of religion on other parts of public life, like public prayer or government-sponsored science curricula featuring "intelligent design".
Convert or die is not now, and never will be, the law of *this* land.
Quote: MathExtremistWhy do you believe that the Supreme Court of the United States has any authority over what happens in the Vatican? We're not in the 1500s when Church and State were, um, not separated. Do you think the Establishment clause of the Constitution is in jeopardy somehow?
Maybe because many believe the White House wrote the recent Climate speech for the Pope.
Quote: ams288It's likely the SCOTUS will deliver a couple of right-wing opinions on Monday. Hopefully the right will protest those just as hard. This is still an extremely right wing court.
Ted Cruz wants a Constitutional Amendment holding the judges accountable to voters every eight years. What a clown.
I believe we all know all 9 are tools of the President that puts them in place, and I'm sure Ted isn't counting on you for support.
White House != SCOTUS. Clearly. The White House / State Department are *supposed to* exert influence over foreign entities. That's what "treaties" are...Quote: BozMaybe because many believe the White House wrote the recent Climate speech for the Pope.
Also, many people believe every casino in Las Vegas uses biased dice, or that dinosaurs went extinct only 1000 years ago. Doesn't make it true.
Anybody who has lived and worked overseas (more in some countries than others) for a few years can recount the overly strong influence of the U.S. Embassy and certain of its personnel, notably the DCOM, as well as a broad swath of public and private American entities on the host country.Quote: MathExtremistWhite House != SCOTUS. Clearly. The White House / State Department are *supposed to* exert influence over foreign entities. That's what "treaties" are...
That is not such a far jump from the prosecution of businesses and other parties that, say, do not want to cater to same-sex weddings.Quote: Dalex64The Supreme Court would first have to declare that people have a right to get married in a church before they could say that someone's rights were being violated by being denied a church wedding.
Quote: BozMaybe because many believe the White House wrote the recent Climate speech for the Pope.
Is this for real? Do people really believe this?!
I am honestly asking. I haven't heard this (insane) conspiracy theory before.
Quote: ams288Is this for real? Do people really believe this?!
I am honestly asking. I haven't heard this (insane) conspiracy theory before.
Lets just say that it would not surprise me. The global warming scam is incredibly uniform in its propaganda.
Quote: SanchoPanzaThat is not such a far jump from the prosecution of businesses and other parties that, say, do not want to cater to same-sex weddings.
I think it is different - a business offering services to the general public vs an organization offering certain member-only services.
Right now, a non-catholic man and woman can not demand a catholic wedding.
The general public are generally welcome to attend services, but are not welcome to receive communion.
So I think there are still clearly different rules that treat "organizations" and "businesses" differently, and all of those would also need to come together before the rules affecting one could have an impact on the other.
Quote: TwoFeathersATLCould a State just simply say, "we don't recognize marriage as a legal union between 2 ( or more) individuals?
Just say, "you're on your on, we'll deal with you one at a time"? And only "one at a time"?
I think Mississippi is somewhat seriously considering this, although this could end up as part of one of those "this didn't really happen" articles over on Cracked. I doubt that it will happen, as it will do the state more harm than good - it would be telling the people who believe in "traditional" marriage, "Sorry, but your type of marriage is just as banned as a man trying to marry his brother, the brother's 10-year old daughter, and the daughter's pet dog as well, simultaneously."
As for whether or not a church will be forced to conduct a same-sex wedding: no. However, I would not be surprised to see calls for churches that refuse to conduct them to have their tax-exempt status removed, although I don't expect to see that actually happening either.
Quote: Dalex64I think it is different - a business offering services to the general public vs an organization offering certain member-only services.
Right now, a non-catholic man and woman can not demand a catholic wedding.
Yes, this is the salient distinction. Businesses cannot discriminate on the basis of faith, religions can. It's not like you can walk into a church and demand a bar mitzvah for your son, or walk into a mosque and demand a baptism for your baby. The whole point of Constitutionally-protected religious freedom is that you have the Right (capital R) to avoid government interference with your religious practice.
But baking a cake is not a religious practice, it is a commercial enterprise. Commercial enterprises must not be able to discriminate on the basis of the religious faith of the proprietor.
Quote: MathExtremist
But baking a cake is not a religious practice, it is a commercial enterprise. Commercial enterprises must not be able to discriminate on the basis of the religious faith of the proprietor.
Yep, exactly. here is where I think people get confused. You have a right to be against gay marriage and not want to participate or bake a cake. Whether it's a religious belief or just personal choice for whatever reason. Likewise, you have a right to be a racist and not like black people and not want to cook for or serve them food.
What you don't have a right to do is open a business that is open to the public and engage in these discriminatory practices. If you don't want to bake a cake for gays, or Blacks or Jews, or whomever, you don't go into the cake baking business. If you don't want to serve blacks you don't open a restaurant. You just can't open a restaurant and hang a sign that says "No blacks served". This has long since been decided. The cake thing is the exact same thing.
The smart folks on the right have wanted to get past this issue for quite a while now. It is a LOSING issue for the republicans. Polls now show almost 60% support for gay marriage and much higher among the younger generation, ever the younger generation of republicans. That means, not only are you losing big, but each and every day that passes, the margin grows. It is a fight that has been lost.
Some of those that are digging in their heels are saying things like this will energize the base. People that this is such an issue for were already high energy right wing voters that were going to vote republican anyway. This isn't bringing any NEW voters to the game and that's what the repubs need to do.
Presidential elections are tilted away from the republicans. Fair or not, that's a fact. Just the same as under the current rules, congressional elections are tilted to the republicans. With the Presidential election process tilted slightly against them, republicans have little room for error. They almost have to thread the needle. They aren't going to do that by doubling down on being the party against gays, Latinos, women. The smart operatives in the party know and say they need to be more inclusive. That doesn't mean they need to win any of those groups but they cannot lose those groups by the huge margins that they do and continue to be relevant.
And BTW, there are many, many gays that hold mostly conservative values. The older gay generation, which are most of the faces of the gay marriage 'debate' almost assuredly hold conservative value on just about everything. Just the fact that they want to enter into 'traditional marriages and raise families tell you that. Many of them own businesses. Many are just a natural fit for the republican party, but they are driven to the democratic party by the republicans lack of inclusion.
It's fun and going to continue to be fun to watch.
Quote: kewlj
What you don't have a right to do is open a business that is open to the public and engage in these discriminatory practices. If you don't want to bake a cake for gays, or Blacks or Jews, or whomever, you don't go into the cake baking business. If you don't want to serve blacks you don't open a restaurant. You just can't open a restaurant and hang a sign that says "No blacks served". This has long since been decided. The cake thing is the exact same thing.
The cake thing is so simple. The baker has the right to say, "I can make a cake, but I do not carry same-sex figurines for the topper." If the couple wants that cake so bad they can be directed to the internet to find some for themselves. This is what bakers need to do. Just say, "It is not a product I carry in my store, and I have a policy of no 'bring ins' for anyone."
Just as you cannot force a Ford dealer to carry Chevy parts, you cannot force a bakery to carry decorations they do not want. This seems to be a solution that is fair to all.
Quote: AZDuffmanThe cake thing is so simple. The baker has the right to say, "I can make a cake, but I do not carry same-sex figurines for the topper." If the couple wants that cake so bad they can be directed to the internet to find some for themselves. This is what bakers need to do. Just say, "It is not a product I carry in my store, and I have a policy of no 'bring ins' for anyone."
Just as you cannot force a Ford dealer to carry Chevy parts, you cannot force a bakery to carry decorations they do not want. This seems to be a solution that is fair to all.
Until he cannot open for business because of protests outside his door. Remember it's all about tolerance on 1 side only. The other side is called bigotry and racism.
Quote: ThatDonGuy
As for whether or not a church will be forced to conduct a same-sex wedding: no. However, I would not be surprised to see calls for churches that refuse to conduct them to have their tax-exempt status removed, although I don't expect to see that actually happening either.
Even if this happens it is unlikely to have any effect and it shouldn't have any effect. A church as a religious institution can choose to refuse to marry whomever they wish. I mean right now a church is well within its right to refuse to marry an interracial couple and I'm sure there are some that do. That has been legal for near 50 years now and no church has lost tax exempt status over it.
Some churches should probably lose their tax exempt status due to some of the politicking that they do, but whether they keep or lose their tax exempt status should have nothing to do with whether they choose to marry gay couples or not.
Quote: AZDuffmanThe cake thing is so simple. The baker has the right to say, "I can make a cake, but I do not carry same-sex figurines for the topper." If the couple wants that cake so bad they can be directed to the internet to find some for themselves. This is what bakers need to do. Just say, "It is not a product I carry in my store, and I have a policy of no 'bring ins' for anyone."
Just as you cannot force a Ford dealer to carry Chevy parts, you cannot force a bakery to carry decorations they do not want. This seems to be a solution that is fair to all.
If that had been the dispute in the Oregon case, it never would have gone anywhere. But that's not what happened. A same-sex couple walked into a Portland-area bakery to get a cake for their wedding and the owner said "we don't do same-sex weddings" and called them "an abomination unto the Lord." It was *exactly* the scenario I was talking about. A bakery is not a religious institution but they refused service to the gay couple on the basis of the owner's faith. It was a direct violation of state law.
http://www.kgw.com/story/news/local/2015/02/02/ruling-gresham-bakery-discriminated-against-same-sex-couple/22760387/
I mean, the owners of In-N-Out Burger are religious too (look at the bottom of the cups) but do you think they'd ever deny two Double Doubles with animal fries to a gay couple? That'd be insanity.
Also insanity: eating animal fries. (You have to try them once, but what a gut bomb.)
Quote: BozUntil he cannot open for business because of protests outside his door. Remember it's all about tolerance on 1 side only. The other side is called bigotry and racism.
Intolerant gays will try to shut him down, but he will get plenty of other business because of it as well. Just like when they tried to attack Chick Fil-A and the next week Chick Fil-A stores ran out of food business was so good.
I saw an interesting article that said as this mainstream acceptance comes about, gays will have to learn to STFU and act like normal people. (Well, I embellished a little :-) )
IOW, many either don't know how to stop acting as "outsiders" or are such attention-whores that they would almost rather be discriminated against so they can march in parades and protests. They have achieved their goal, now go to work and act like everyone else. One interesting thing the article said was some gay-bars were being "invaded" by bachelorette parties, presumably because the ladies want to act wild but not have guys hitting on them. This of course leads many regular patrons to have the "what are they doing in our space?! attitude.
On this matter, we are clearly at the point of "time will tell."
Quote: BozUntil he cannot open for business because of protests outside his door. Remember it's all about tolerance on 1 side only. The other side is called bigotry and racism.
If you are trying to run a business but you can't open because you have protests outside your door, you have failed at marketing and deserve to go out of business.
You have a Constitutionally-protected Right to peaceably gather and protest. You have no such right to run a successful business. You have the right to *try*, but if you fail because you've angered your potential clientele and they're protesting, that's on you.
It's called voting with your wallet. How many businesses do you patronize where you hate the owners? (I'm not talking to EvenBob, we know he hates casinos but plays roulette anyway.)
Quote: MathExtremist
It's called voting with your wallet. How many businesses do you patronize where you hate the owners?
That is all those of us who believe in freedom are trying to tell the gay lobby! If you do not like the bakery/photographer/DJ then find one you like to do business with.
Quote: AZDuffmanThey have achieved their goal, now go to work and act like everyone else.
Outside of being incredibly stereotypical gays have no where near accomplished their goals. In many states gays can be fired for being gay, they can be denied housing for being gay, many businesses can refuse them service because they are gay. Marriage is but one small step necessary to get gay people the equality they need since they are people.
Quote: AZDuffmanThat is all those of us who believe in freedom are trying to tell the gay lobby! If you do not like the bakery/photographer/DJ then find one you like to do business with.
Holy cow, that's not the point at all. Do you actually believe a commercial bakery should be able to refuse service to any particular group of citizens?
Do you believe any of the following are acceptable policies for a bakery to have?
a) We do not serve women.
b) We do not serve men.
c) We do not serve Muslims.
d) We do not serve Christians.
e) We do not serve heterosexuals.
f) We do not serve homosexuals.
g) We do not serve Caucasians.
h) We do not serve Blacks.
You're entitled to believe "yes" but such discrimination is expressly prohibited by state law almost everywhere.
Are you suggesting that your belief in "freedom" should overturn those laws? That it would be okay, for example, to run a restaurant that doesn't let Black people in because you have a particular "religious belief"? If so, how do you reconcile that position with the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution?
Quote: MathExtremistHoly cow, that's not the point at all. Do you actually believe a commercial bakery should be able to refuse service to any particular group of citizens?
You're entitled to believe "yes" but such discrimination is expressly prohibited by state law almost everywhere.
Are you suggesting that your belief in "freedom" should overturn those laws? That it would be okay, for example, to run a restaurant that doesn't let Black people in because you have a particular "religious belief"? If so, how do you reconcile that position with the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution?
It is not refusing service to a group of customers. It is about what products they want to sell.
A commercial bakery should have the freedom to limit what products it carries. It cannot say "no gays" but it absolutely can say, "here is our list of what we carry, choose from it." If the gay wants something not on the list, he or she will have to choose something else or find a place that carries it.
To use your restaurant example, a black can go to a restaurant and order off the menu. He cannot say, "I demand you add collard greens to the menu!"
Compare the uproar of Christians who refuse service to muslims who do. A cab is way more of a public accommodation than a bakery making a customized product or a photographer.
Quote: kewljIt was expected to see some blowback and resistance from the far right immediately after this ruling. We have seen that here on 'our' site as well the real world politics. Some on the far right want to dig in their heels. To use a blackjack term, double down. Huge mistake.
The smart folks on the right have wanted to get past this issue for quite a while now. It is a LOSING issue for the republicans. Polls now show almost 60% support for gay marriage and much higher among the younger generation, ever the younger generation of republicans. That means, not only are you losing big, but each and every day that passes, the margin grows. It is a fight that has been lost.
Some of those that are digging in their heels are saying things like this will energize the base. People that this is such an issue for were already high energy right wing voters that were going to vote republican anyway. This isn't bringing any NEW voters to the game and that's what the repubs need to do.
Presidential elections are tilted away from the republicans. Fair or not, that's a fact. Just the same as under the current rules, congressional elections are tilted to the republicans. With the Presidential election process tilted slightly against them, republicans have little room for error. They almost have to thread the needle. They aren't going to do that by doubling down on being the party against gays, Latinos, women. The smart operatives in the party know and say they need to be more inclusive. That doesn't mean they need to win any of those groups but they cannot lose those groups by the huge margins that they do and continue to be relevant.
And BTW, there are many, many gays that hold mostly conservative values. The older gay generation, which are most of the faces of the gay marriage 'debate' almost assuredly hold conservative value on just about everything. Just the fact that they want to enter into 'traditional marriages and raise families tell you that. Many of them own businesses. Many are just a natural fit for the republican party, but they are driven to the democratic party by the republicans lack of inclusion.
It's fun and going to continue to be fun to watch.
This is a GREAT post. Excellent points all around.
Quote: AZDuffmanIt is not refusing service to a group of customers. It is about what products they want to sell.
A commercial bakery should have the freedom to limit what products it carries. It cannot say "no gays" but it absolutely can say, "here is our list of what we carry, choose from it." If the gay wants something not on the list, he or she will have to choose something else or find a place that carries it.
The gay couple in Portland went into a cake bakery and tried to order a cake from the menu. They didn't ask for a pizza, a lampshade, a ficus plant, or anything else "not on the list." Where are you getting this bizarre counterfactual?
Edit: to your linked article, I also support sanctions against cab drivers who refuse to pick up fares based on religious beliefs, whatever they are. If your faith puts you in a position where you need to discriminate in the course of doing your non-religious job, find another job. I think it's deplorable that pharmacists in some states can decline to fill a prescription for birth control pills because they have strong religious convictions that birth control is a sin.
Quote: AZDuffmanIt is not refusing service to a group of customers. It is about what products they want to sell.
A commercial bakery should have the freedom to limit what products it carries. It cannot say "no gays" but it absolutely can say, "here is our list of what we carry, choose from it." If the gay wants something not on the list, he or she will have to choose something else or find a place that carries it.
To use your restaurant example, a black can go to a restaurant and order off the menu. He cannot say, "I demand you add collard greens to the menu!"
Compare the uproar of Christians who refuse service to muslims who do. A cab is way more of a public accommodation than a bakery making a customized product or a photographer.
This is not what is happening in most cases. Maybe in the bakery example though the baker didn't say they didn't care same sex toppers they said they didn't serve gays. Also a photographer provides photography service and a cater provides catering service there is no difference with the products they provide between a gay wedding and a straight wedding yet they have refused service and should be punished for it.
Also really that is the example you want to use for against Muslims. Alcohols or people who consume alcohol are not a protected class. The dog one is a bit of a problem because of ADA and those cabbies should be punished. One side being bad does not suddenly excuse you. I mean "He did it first didn't work as a defense in elementary school and it isn't going to work as an adult."
Quote: MathExtremistThe gay couple in Portland went into a cake bakery and tried to order a cake from the menu. They didn't ask for a pizza, a lampshade, a ficus plant, or anything else "not on the list." Where are you getting this bizarre counterfactual?
I am talking about rights in general, not just one case. Wedding cakes are customized to some extent, so the bakery should be able to limit what they carry. And as I said, that goes right down to the bride-and-groom topper. They need not give a reason they do not carry same-sex toppers.
Way more problematic for me was the photographer who got sued. There is no way a photographer can be a "public accommodation." In that kind of business you have every right to decline service.
Quote: AZDuffmanQuote: MathExtremistThe gay couple in Portland went into a cake bakery and tried to order a cake from the menu. They didn't ask for a pizza, a lampshade, a ficus plant, or anything else "not on the list." Where are you getting this bizarre counterfactual?
I am talking about rights in general, not just one case. Wedding cakes are customized to some extent, so the bakery should be able to limit what they carry. And as I said, that goes right down to the bride-and-groom topper. They need not give a reason they do not carry same-sex toppers.
Way more problematic for me was the photographer who got sued. There is no way a photographer can be a "public accommodation." In that kind of business you have every right to decline service.
AZD, and ams, and others that have posted 'a lot' on this and similar political type threads. I wonder if you volunteer for, or even work as a job for, political candidates or parties. You seem extremely dedicated to the dialog, which is great by the way don't mis-understand. I like to see passionate debate, love the exchange of ideas, the more the better. That's kind-of who we are, and quite possibly 'why we still are'. We are still here, we debate, we encourage debate (well most of the best of us do). I just wondered about being so politically active on what is essentially a gambling forum. Anyone want to speak a little about what you do besides post on the issues here? I assume you vote, if in Chicago - early, often, repeatedly ;-)
What else?
Quote: TwoFeathersATL
AZD, and ams, and others that have posted 'a lot' on this and similar political type threads. I wonder if you volunteer for, or even work as a job for, political candidates or parties. You seem extremely dedicated to the dialog, which is great by the way don't mis-understand. I like to see passionate debate, love the exchange of ideas, the more the better. That's kind-of who we are, and quite possibly 'why we still are'. We are still here, we debate, we encourage debate (well most of the best of us do). I just wondered about being so politically active on what is essentially a gambling forum. Anyone want to speak a little about what you do besides post on the issues here? I assume you vote, if in Chicago - early, often, repeatedly ;-)
What else?
I usually work in the Oil and Gas industry, otherwise see "The Side Hustle Thread" and others at DT. I exchange ideas and debate here for two reasons. First, it is brain exercise of the first order. When you debate a point you have to logically think on that point and how you will debate it. If your position gets challenged you have to keep rethinking why you hold the belief and how you will further defend it. Think of it as a verbal sparring match. In my day job my brain has to be both logical and sharp. The hobbies I have require the same. Believe it or not this helps.
Second, over 25 years of internet forums I have heard form time to time that people liked my posts or that it helped them with their thinking. I do not have the reach of a Rush Limbaugh or even a Jack Spirko, but it is nice to know I help tidy up my little corner of the world.
I have been told here that I am one of the most logical thinkers you will meet. You may not agree with me, but you will find logic and not "feelings" in my positions. I forget who it was here that was always on the other side of me but someone said he and I should be poster kids for how to conduct a debate on forums. There was never name calling, just debate. We could have been on a cable news show like "Crossfire" I believe. When you act like that here, it carries over to other places.
Politically I vote but am far less fired up on it than I used to be because it really matters little. We have a GOP that ran on not giving Obama more power and they jump thru hoops last week to give him more power. Gays could say the same about Obama, in the end all he mostly "did" for them was stand back and let the courts take their time. He expended minimal political capital for them. If the GOP puts Jeb up for the next election I will not vote for POTUS. If they are not going to put up a good, conservative candidate why should I bother? The USSR ejecting Hitler from Poland to live under Stalin was no reason to celebrate.
The only part I would wonder about was the statement that you might not vote for POTUS in 2016.
I almost had that feeling in 2012, knew Romney would win my state, and would probably lose the election.
I threatened to go to Fl or VA for 30 days to try to help, but it was an empty threat.
And Romney was 'my guy' in 2008, not in 2012.
I think you gotta vote, I vote even in the piddlin' local runoffs that cost more to hold than they are worth.
Gonna be one hellova 16 months coming up. Good luck to us all, good luck to the country.
Quote: TwoFeathersATLAZD, thanks for the response, big thanks.
The only part I would wonder about was the statement that you might not vote for POTUS in 2016.
I almost had that feeling in 2012, knew Romney would win my state, and would probably lose the election.
I threatened to go to Fl or VA for 30 days to try to help, but it was an empty threat.
And Romney was 'my guy' in 2008, not in 2012.
I think you gotta vote, I vote even in the piddlin' local runoffs that cost more to hold than they are worth.
The thing is you really can't help. Even when you can, look at 2000 when the FL court almost helped Gore steal the election. Look at the demands for no voter ID, same-day registration, and voting weeks in advance. American history is full of power-grabs, but it seems that the last 10 years have been getting exponentially worse. More and more ways to fraud things. Less and less check and balance. Lets not even start on the craziness of "open primaries." Frankly, I am getting too old to worry.
However, I do usually vote. I will vote for other things. But I will not vote for Jeb. To me that is akin to Warsaw in 1940 getting to vote for Stalin or Hitler. Screwed either way. I am likely never voting Democrat again, I like freedom and equality too much to do that. But the GOP establishment keeps putting up "Democrat Lite." Their campaigns are equally bad. McCain looked like some jobber told to lose to the new guy the WWE was giving push to. Romney was a little though not much better. The party has taken my vote for granted for too long.
Quote: AZDuffmanThe thing is you really can't help. Even when you can, look at 2000 when the FL court almost helped Gore steal the election. Look at the demands for no voter ID, same-day registration, and voting weeks in advance. American history is full of power-grabs, but it seems that the last 10 years have been getting exponentially worse. More and more ways to fraud things. Less and less check and balance. Lets not even start on the craziness of "open primaries." Frankly, I am getting too old to worry.
However, I do usually vote. I will vote for other things. But I will not vote for Jeb. To me that is akin to Warsaw in 1940 getting to vote for Stalin or Hitler. Screwed either way. I am likely never voting Democrat again, I like freedom and equality too much to do that. But the GOP establishment keeps putting up "Democrat Lite." Their campaigns are equally bad. McCain looked like some jobber told to lose to the new guy the WWE was giving push to. Romney was a little though not much better. The party has taken my vote for granted for too long.
I agree, both parties tend to front the moderates who at the end of the day have few differences, mostly just on social issues that are frankly irrelevant on a global scale (such as gay marriage, which I am obviously a supporter of, but at the end of the day it is usually used as an irrelevant talking point to dismiss people of the conservative persuasion).
I think Donald Trump winning the primary can be a step in the right direction for the GOP. I liked almost everything that he said. We do need tariffs on China, we do need extreme border security, we do need to ramp up the bombing of ISIS and to destroy their economy (oil fields). Other countries impose all of these things on us, but we are afraid to impose them in return. If Trump legitimately means what he says, he seems to be the strongest candidate who actually has the courage to apologetically tackle these issues that most people are afraid of bringing up because of political correctness.
Quote: GandlerI agree, both parties tend to front the moderates who at the end of the day have few differences, mostly just on social issues that are frankly irrelevant on a global scale (such as gay marriage, which I am obviously a supporter of, but at the end of the day it is usually used as an irrelevant talking point to dismiss people of the conservative persuasion).
I think Donald Trump winning the primary can be a step in the right direction for the GOP. I liked almost everything that he said. We do need tariffs on China, we do need extreme border security, we do need to ramp up the bombing of ISIS and to destroy their economy (oil fields). Other countries impose all of these things on us, but we are afraid to impose them in return. If Trump legitimately means what he says, he seems to be the strongest candidate who actually has the courage to apologetically tackle these issues that most people are afraid of bringing up because of political correctness.
Winning the primary? You didn't say winning the election, you said winning the primary. I find that odd. I wish I could believe in Trump, but I'm sorry, I just can't. He's a good businessman, but he hasn't convinced me he has the 'state of the union' as anywhere near his first priority. I guess I could say the same for most of the other declared and likely to declare Republican candidates. To live in a world where I get to choose between Hilary and Donald, I already said it, welcome to wonderland, step right up, everyone's a winner.
Quote: Gandler
I think Donald Trump winning the primary can be a step in the right direction for the GOP. I liked almost everything that he said. We do need tariffs on China, we do need extreme border security, we do need to ramp up the bombing of ISIS and to destroy their economy (oil fields). Other countries impose all of these things on us, but we are afraid to impose them in return. If Trump legitimately means what he says, he seems to be the strongest candidate who actually has the courage to apologetically tackle these issues that most people are afraid of bringing up because of political correctness.
The Trump thing could catch in a small way. What is going on is similar to 1992. Young and dumb, I voted Dem in my first election in 1988. At the time I thought they were for the little, working, union guy. I didn't know that my union dues were helping the Gambino crime family shake down Frank Purdue at the time and I didn't know that the Democrats cared more about those who refused to work than those who did. BUT, Bush raised taxes in 1990, after he said he would not. That and he played a prevent defense after the Gulf War. Approval falling bit by bit, drip by drip, down the drain. So I voted Perot because Clinton was just too much a nut job for me.
The GOP never learns. Same strategy 20+ years later. Walker is my current choice, if it gets to Trump or Jeb I am going Trump. Because I am at a less than caring point and I think the USA is screwed 2020-2030 either way. The next decade will be one of major economic and social problems, probably violent. My energy is spent getting my personal house in order for that. I will not be like those 50 year olds who were bagging groceries and mopping floors beside me when I was 17 because they were let go from "the mill" and had no better prospects.
Quote: Gandler
I think Donald Trump winning the primary can be a step in the right direction for the GOP. I liked almost everything that he said. We do need tariffs on China, we do need extreme border security, we do need to ramp up the bombing of ISIS and to destroy their economy (oil fields). Other countries impose all of these things on us, but we are afraid to impose them in return. If Trump legitimately means what he says, he seems to be the strongest candidate who actually has the courage to apologetically tackle these issues that most people are afraid of bringing up because of political correctness.
You're joking right? This is a guy with no understanding of economy, he claimed we had a less than 0 GDP I don't even know what the hell that would mean it is an economic impossibility. He claims real unemployment is 18-20% when even the highest estimates of underemployment are listed at 16% and those are from non trusted resources and are generally seen as incredibly inaccurate the highest official count of underemployment is 10.8. His views on immigration are laughably ridiculous, implying that a significant majority of immigrants are rapist. The guy is an absolute joke and why anyone takes him seriously about anything is beyond me.
Quote: TwirdmanYou're joking right? This is a guy with no understanding of economy, he claimed we had a less than 0 GDP I don't even know what the hell that would mean it is an economic impossibility. He claims real unemployment is 18-20% when even the highest estimates of underemployment are listed at 16% and those are from non trusted resources and are generally seen as incredibly inaccurate the highest official count of underemployment is 10.8. His views on immigration are laughably ridiculous, implying that a significant majority of immigrants are rapist. The guy is an absolute joke and why anyone takes him seriously about anything is beyond me.
Twirdman, you should take him seriously, and I'm serious about that. He has enough money, he has name recognition. My only question is if he cares about my children's children's children. I suspect if he can convince voters that he does, Katy can't bar the door.
And the Dem opponent, can't be Hillary. Really? Hillary? Real estate in New Zealand would probably be a good investment about now.....
Quote: TwirdmanYou're joking right? This is a guy with no understanding of economy, he claimed we had a less than 0 GDP I don't even know what the hell that would mean it is an economic impossibility. He claims real unemployment is 18-20% when even the highest estimates of underemployment are listed at 16% and those are from non trusted resources and are generally seen as incredibly inaccurate the highest official count of underemployment is 10.8. His views on immigration are laughably ridiculous, implying that a significant majority of immigrants are rapist. The guy is an absolute joke and why anyone takes him seriously about anything is beyond me.
He knows more than some people:
The price of both of my favorite ammunitions just spiked, again.
I don't think that has anything to do with who wins the US election:Quote: TwoFeathersATLReal estate in New Zealand would probably be a good investment about now.....
Quote: AZDuffmanHe knows more than some people:
An out of context quote mine which in context says that the Austrian school of economics is not bore out by data and trickle down economics has largely proved to be a failure things that are true is comparable to an in context statement by Trump claiming that the US GDP is less then 0 or the real unemployment rate is nearly twice as high as the highest official numbers for underemployment. I mean the GDP statement is perhaps one of the stupidest statements said by any potential presidential candidate about the economy it is a literal impossibility. It is like claiming something is colder then absolute zero it is an impossibility. You could argue he was talking about GDP growth but then his statement about growth never being negative is laughably ignorant. I mean the definition of a recession is negative growth and we've had multiple recessions in the 20th century and before. I mean it was either super super double dumb or just super dumb. Either way it is way dumber then the quote you provided when you look at the context.
Quote: Twirdman
An out of context quote mine which in context says that the Austrian school of economics is not bore out by data and trickle down economics has largely proved to be a failure things that are true is comparable to an in context statement by Trump claiming that the US GDP is less then 0 or the real unemployment rate is nearly twice as high as the highest official numbers for underemployment. I mean the GDP statement is perhaps one of the stupidest statements said by any potential presidential candidate about the economy it is a literal impossibility. It is like claiming something is colder then absolute zero it is an impossibility. You could argue he was talking about GDP growth but then his statement about growth never being negative is laughably ignorant. I mean the definition of a recession is negative growth and we've had multiple recessions in the 20th century and before. I mean it was either super super double dumb or just super dumb. Either way it is way dumber then the quote you provided when you look at the context.
She is just as clueless if she says "trickle down is a failure" as we came out of the 1982 recession far, far stronger than the most recent one. Anyone can look that up, and 1982 was as bad or worse than 2008. I do not think it is "out of context" at all, I think that this woman does not understand how jobs are created and that the private sector is the only way they are, either direct or in growth of tax receipts.
Remember, Hillary is the woman who admitted she was not intelligent enough to have a personal and work email at the same time!
Quote: AZDuffmanShe is just as clueless if she says "trickle down is a failure" as we came out of the 1982 recession far, far stronger than the most recent one. Anyone can look that up, and 1982 was as bad or worse than 2008. I do not think it is "out of context" at all, I think that this woman does not understand how jobs are created and that the private sector is the only way they are, either direct or in growth of tax receipts.
Remember, Hillary is the woman who admitted she was not intelligent enough to have a personal and work email at the same time!
And we came out of the 1990s recession incredibly strong even though we had increased taxes during Clinton's tenure. One piece of datum is not solid proof. Most serious economist reject the Austrian school of economics. So her rejecting the Austrian school doesn't even raise remotely to the level of Trump who did one of two thigns either he claimed something that is literally impossible was happening or even if we give him the maximum benefit of the doubt and say he meant GDP growth he would have been claiming that no recession has ever happened and in fact even more then that since a recession requires two quarters of negative GDP growth and he claimed we have never experienced one. Heck even his less stupid statement about true unemployment being 18-20% is far stupider then claiming that the Austrian school of economics is false again something stated by numerous respected academics and Nobel prize winners.
Donald Trump is a joke. He is a fairly successful business man, though not anywhere near the 9 billion he claims according to any source that isn't Donald Trumps personal valuation, but that is about it. How he got his degree from Wharton in economics while thinking we either have negative GDP or that we've never had negative GDP growth is a mystery to everyone.
Quote: TwirdmanAnd we came out of the 1990s recession incredibly strong even though we had increased taxes during Clinton's tenure.
Not sure where you were at, the early 1990s were called the "jobless recovery." Clinton's election actually slammed the brakes on a decent recovery.
GDP Growth for selected quarters:
1982 Q3 -1.3 LAST QUARTER OF 1982 RECESSION
Q4 0.39
1983 Q1 5.35
Q2 9.44
Q3 8.1
Q4 8.5
1984 Q1 8.2
Q2 7.2
Q3 3.99
Q4 4.0
1991 Q1 -1.9 GULF WAR RECESSION
Q2 3.1
Q3 1.9
Q4 3.1
1992 Q1 4.8
Q2 4.5
Q3 3.9
Q4 4.0
CLINTON TAKES OFFICE
1993 Q1 0.75
Q2 2.4
Q3 1.9
Q4 5.4
1994 Q1 3.9
Q2 5.6
Q3 2.4
Q4 4.6
1995 Q1 1.4
Q2 1.4
Q3 3.4
Q4 2.8
Since 1-1-2009:
Not 1 quarter above 5%
Best quarter was Q3 2014 at 4.9
Never 3 quarters in a row above 3%
Quote: MathExtremistI don't think that has anything to do with who wins the US election:
It actually does, sorry to disagree with you. But it was not a terrible option/bet even long before we started talking about whatever we're talking about. I hope you bought in early.....
Quote: AZDuffmanNot sure where you were at, the early 1990s were called the "jobless recovery." Clinton's election actually slammed the brakes on a decent recovery.
And yet he precided over one of the longest periods of economic growth in the nations history and had some of the lowest unemployment rates in decades. Significantly lower unemployment then Reagan or Bush Sr got to. Neither of them managed to even get it under 5%
Quote: TwirdmanAnd yet he precided over one of the longest periods of economic growth in the nations history and had some of the lowest unemployment rates in decades. Significantly lower unemployment then Reagan or Bush Sr got to. Neither of them managed to even get it under 5%
He presided over an economy that was expanding when he took over and slammed the brakes on it for a year. The unemployment rate fell most after the GOP Congress came to power and put a check on his ambitions. Lets not forget the crash of so many of the dot-coms that formed when he was in power.
Reality is that if you tax at higher rates people will not work or invest as much. This is both ECON101 and PSYC101. Not to mention a person knows this if they spent a day in their life in the real world.
I AM HAPPY TO REPORT I FOUND TAPE OF THE COLLEGE PROFESSOR ADVISING HILLARY ON ECONOMIC POLICY:
Quote: TwirdmanYou're joking right? This is a guy with no understanding of economy, he claimed we had a less than 0 GDP I don't even know what the hell that would mean it is an economic impossibility. He claims real unemployment is 18-20% when even the highest estimates of underemployment are listed at 16% and those are from non trusted resources and are generally seen as incredibly inaccurate the highest official count of underemployment is 10.8. His views on immigration are laughably ridiculous, implying that a significant majority of immigrants are rapist. The guy is an absolute joke and why anyone takes him seriously about anything is beyond me.
Well I challenge anyone to find a politicIan who has not had a few tongue slips, when you constantly give speeches you are going to make a few verbal typos, it's simply probability.
As for the rapists comment. That is not what he said, for one thing he was specifically talking about illegal immigrants, not regular immigrants. For another he used a plethora of words to describe the various criminals that constitute illegal immigrants, rapists being one of many (I am assuming you did not watch his complete speech, and only saw out of context cuts by progressive pundits). But his point was very valid. People who come here illegally do so for very clear reasons, usually because they cannot come here legally, which means they are likley either sick with a dangerous disease, have a criminal history, or associations which would make the application process difficult. It's a very true and valid point.
