2016 Election

Quote: rxwine

He who has not sinned against the state once or twice in their lifetime may throw the first stone.

If you've never done anything wrong (caught or not) you can throw stones on this one.

Nonsense. By this logic you cannot speak out against the illegal alien who killed the woman in San Francisco. Or the 133,000 illegal aliens in our prison systems. 27% of Federal prisoners are illegals, 5% of the population is 27% of the criminals.

I'll throw all the stones I want, along with The Donald. What scares liberals is that if the facts come out the silent majority gets less silent.

Sources

Quote: rxwine

He who has not sinned against the state once or twice in their lifetime may throw the first stone.

If you've never done anything wrong (caught or not) you can throw stones on this one.

That is not really a rational argument.

Everyone has certainly broken some law intentionally or not.

But entering a sovereign land illegally is a a major moral dilemma in itself. My family (with the exception of a tiny amount of Native American blood) were all immigrants, they were all poor, they worked hard for many years and applied to come here legally and went through the whole screening process.

The idea that anyone should be allowed to wander over the border with no idea of who they are or their background or medical condition, is absurd. Some people come here for free (for them not for us) medical treatment in ERs who cannot turn them away even knowing that they will never pay. Some come here to smuggle drugs, some come here to work legitimate jobs which creates more competition for low skilled Americans, some come here for free education (the whole ESL program is costing schools absurd amounts of money, yes its not only illegals who use it, but lets be realistic, they make up a significant percentage, I would never move to Belgium and then demand that the government start a whole English language program in public schools for my kids).

Illegal immigration brings a plethora of problems, and is funneling a lot of money out of our country (Mexico, just to give an example of the nearby country, has their largest form of foreign income as workers in America sending their wages into Mexican accounts, that is all money leaving America).

We do need an effective and highly militarized wall on our border (like Spain has), it will be the only way to secure that area, especially since the Mexican government has shown themselves to not cooperate at all, they don't care about people leaving because its a huge income source for them.

It isn't nonsense. Looking at someone who continues to do crimes after entering the country illegally is certainly worth preventing.

Otherwise, it's much too much hubbub about too little for those who don't. And considering what they do or don't do is important too, even if not a crime.

Quote: rxwine

It isn't nonsense. Looking at someone who continues to do crimes after entering the country illegally is certainly worth preventing.

Otherwise, it's much too much hubbub about too little for those who don't. And considering what they do or don't do is important too, even if not a crime.

30% of Federal inmates are illegal aliens. That means 30% of people in Federal prison are people who should not even be in the country.

And, you don't go to Federal prison for minor reasons. So the argument that "Well the police probably just busted a lot of them for having a bit of pot and profiling them" does not fly.

If you are in federal prison you committed a federal crime so you are likely a murderer, a counterfeiter, a forger, or some other sort of violent offense, or Federal government offense. They are not in Federal prison for drunk driving or smoking a joint at a college party.

Quote: Gandler

And, you don't go to Federal prison for minor reasons. So the argument that "Well the police probably just busted a lot of them for having a bit of pot and profiling them" does not fly.

Not according to the Bureau of Justice.

Quote:

The vast majority of immigration offenders in federal prison
were convicted of illegal reentry or illegal entry offenses
(90%), followed by alien smuggling (10%) and visa fraud (less
than 1%).

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/iofjs10.pdf

Quote: rxwine

He who has not sinned against the state once or twice in their lifetime may throw the first stone. If you've never done anything wrong (caught or not) you can throw stones on this one.

Under that construction, we should do away with juries, judges and prosecutors.

Quote: rxwine

Not according to the Bureau of Justice.



http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/iofjs10.pdf

Right, those are Federal offenses.

Quote: Gandler

Right, those are Federal offenses.

As was pointed out though a significant majority of the offenses committed were being in the country illegally. I mean yes 100% of illegal immigrants have broken the law, because they are illegal immigrants. You then trying to spin that to say a significant chunk of them are murders and rapist because they are in Federal prison is a laughable mis-characterization.

Quote: Twirdman

As was pointed out though a significant majority of the offenses committed were being in the country illegally. I mean yes 100% of illegal immigrants have broken the law, because they are illegal immigrants. You then trying to spin that to say a significant chunk of them are murders and rapist because they are in Federal prison is a laughable mis-characterization.

I never said that, I said everyone in Federal Prison is there for a Federal Offense which includes murder, violent crimes of many nature, immigration violations, counterfiet, etc....

Quote: Twirdman

As was pointed out though a significant majority of the offenses committed were being in the country illegally. I mean yes 100% of illegal immigrants have broken the law, because they are illegal immigrants. You then trying to spin that to say a significant chunk of them are murders and rapist because they are in Federal prison is a laughable mis-characterization.

With almost 300 sanctuary cities, it is more than obvious that the numbers for convictions and incarcerations compared to the number of crimes are vastly understated. Even the federal government says 347,000 illegal immigrants who are convicted felons roam free.

Quote: SanchoPanza

Under that construction, we should do away with juries, judges and prosecutors.

Not at all, but before you throw the stone at border crossers, you should notice your glass house, especially when you act like it's a crime beyond the pale which many rightwingers do. Maybe some leftwingers do too, but I don't hear much from them.

Quote: Gandler

I never said that, I said everyone in Federal Prison is there for a Federal Offense which includes murder, violent crimes of many nature, immigration violations, counterfiet, etc....

You are making incredibly misleading statements though. You want us to think illegal immigrants are violent offenders because many of them are in federal prison and federal prison houses murders, but the truth is they are almost all their for immigration violations.

Quote: Twirdman

You are making incredibly misleading statements though. You want us to think illegal immigrants are violent offenders because many of them are in federal prison and federal prison houses murders, but the truth is they are almost all their for immigration violations.

...and others here are basically saying "they aren't all that bad"...well, except the ones that are that bad. If NONE of them were illegally here, NONE of them illegally here would be in prison for anything. If 200 cross the border and one commits a violent crime, that is still one more violent criminal than we had before.

"Border Patrol Agents (BPAs) and Customs and Border Protection Officers (CBPOs), assigned to The Nogales Placement Center (NPC), discovered that 16 unaccompanied alien children (13 El Salvadoran males, two Guatemalan males and one Honduran male) currently being held at the NPC are members of Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13). The MS-13 gang members admitted to their gang associations following a discovery of graffiti at the NPC. Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO), and the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) were notified."

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/immigration/item/18658-illegal-immigrant-children-include-ms-13-gang-members

I'm sure someone will take the source to task since it is anti-illegal immigration...but everyone sneakin' is not someone we should be happy got here...

Quote: RonC

...and others here are basically saying "they aren't all that bad"...well, except the ones that are that bad. If NONE of them were illegally here, NONE of them illegally here would be in prison for anything. If 200 cross the border and one commits a violent crime, that is still one more violent criminal than we had before.

"Border Patrol Agents (BPAs) and Customs and Border Protection Officers (CBPOs), assigned to The Nogales Placement Center (NPC), discovered that 16 unaccompanied alien children (13 El Salvadoran males, two Guatemalan males and one Honduran male) currently being held at the NPC are members of Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13). The MS-13 gang members admitted to their gang associations following a discovery of graffiti at the NPC. Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO), and the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) were notified."

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/immigration/item/18658-illegal-immigrant-children-include-ms-13-gang-members

I'm sure someone will take the source to task since it is anti-illegal immigration...but everyone sneakin' is not someone we should be happy got here...

Well, we ought to do something more practical than build a wall. Maybe offer a program where an illegal who reports another illegal involved in multiple criminal activities actually earns some special consideration to his/her status. That would be a win win. Get the bad ones sooner and reward someone who helped us get rid of the bad guys.

Quote: rxwine

Well, we ought to do something more practical than build a wall. Maybe offer a program where an illegal who reports another illegal involved in multiple criminal activities actually earns some special consideration to his/her status. That would be a win win. Get the bad ones sooner and reward someone who helped us get rid of the bad guys.

Yeah building a wall is expensive and not really effective for the size of border we have, all it is is a feel good measure for people who don't know any better. One big thing we need to start doing those is actually offer avenues to come to the country legally. I mean if you make it basically impossible to come here legally you shouldn't be surprised when people start resorting to coming here illegally.

Quote: rxwine

Well, we ought to do something more practical than build a wall. Maybe offer a program where an illegal who reports another illegal involved in multiple criminal activities actually earns some special consideration to his/her status. That would be a win win. Get the bad ones sooner and reward someone who helped us get rid of the bad guys.

Maybe. But even better would be destroying the incentives to come here. Require ID to register for school, get a job, or use tax payer subsidized health systems.

If there is no reason to break in, there will be no robber.

Quote: Twirdman

Yeah building a wall is expensive and not really effective for the size of border we have, all it is is a feel good measure for people who don't know any better. One big thing we need to start doing those is actually offer avenues to come to the country legally. I mean if you make it basically impossible to come here legally you shouldn't be surprised when people start resorting to coming here illegally.

Securing the border is part of the cost of being a sovereign nation. You need the military and other federal forces patrolling as well. Nowhere is it written that we have to take everyone who wants to come here.

A first step to keeping people here from coming illegally is end sanctuary cities and make anyone here illegally 100% ineligible for social services. Yes, that includes schooling for illegal's children. Right now they leave poverty for handouts. End the magnet that is pulling them, or at least one of them.

What is sad is how the attitude has cropped up that if you are not in favor of allowing illegal immigration then you are "racist" and "mean spirited." A nation that loses its borders is no longer a nation. We are probably already lost, for many reasons, but why move things along faster?

Quote: rxwine

Well, we ought to do something more practical than build a wall. Maybe offer a program where an illegal who reports another illegal involved in multiple criminal activities actually earns some special consideration to his/her status. That would be a win win. Get the bad ones sooner and reward someone who helped us get rid of the bad guys.

This is the kind of thinking (sic) that is causing America's decline. We are rapidly becoming a North American Brazil. A violent, corrupt, dysfunctional bankrupt state governed by racist black and brown socialist demagogues in league with a tiny white leftist elite.
Meanwhile in China and the rest of Asia they would put a boot firmly in the ass of a single black/hispanic "dreamer" who ever had the temerity to show up on their shores and demand a welfare check and citizenship for their kids.
Guess who wins?

Quote: kewlj

First, why do you have to say something like "that Maddow dude"??? Why do you have to be that small, immature and petty. The second I read something like that, I think "well that is not a very mature person that I want to attempt to engage in any kind of meaningful dialog with".



In your particular case stating "the Gay thing", with 'gay' in quotes emphasizes your opinion and how little you care and can relate to me. It is not a warm fuzzy, inclusive feeling.

I'll tell you, if there were no party labels and affiliations and everyone just ran as individuals based on their own views (and maybe that's the way it should be), I would most likely be supporting Jeb Bush. Instead, when party affiliations and party views and platforms are added to the mix, I will likely vote for Hillary Clinton, a candidate that I don't really like in this cycle.

First off I want to Thank You for taking the time to write a long well thought out post. I wouldnt expect anything else as you always present yourself in that manner. I dont have to time today to address everything but I do feel I want to respond to one part and I hope you understand where I am coming from.

As for maturity, I may or may not act that way in how I present myself but I am a very diverse person. As some know on here I own a successful (in my mind and on paper anyways) Bar and Restaurant that has won many Best of awards and such. I act mature and professional when I have to and other times I can be a complete jackass, and enjoy being both. One thing I am consistant in is my beliefs and they are different from most people. I have little time for feelings if they affect the end result. People waste too much time worrying about how other people will react to something or how they are feeling. In the end it costs them time and money, both of which are important to me. But those are MY values, not others. But that will be never stop me from being me. Just as you dont think I will ever understand how it is to be gay, I will never understand how many people never strive to see the great things in the country and world, are content with a small house, 2.3 kids and working 40 hours 50 weeks a year to go on a crummy (to me) vacation to Ocean City and drop $4000 on a beat up motel room. But it is not my job to run their life, but I sure as hell can say I dont understand it.

But on the gay (or "Gay") thing as I put it. Having 40+ employees, I naturally have a few openly gay ones, and a few more that may or may not be. At the end of the day they are employees, no different that any others to me, I only judge them on their work performance. To me this is how it should always be. I have one bartender who is very open to customers and many enjoy him for it and on rare occasions, others have complained about it. I get it, some just come to get away from their life and dont care about my employees problems. I have the same issues with straight bartenders discussing their problems or conquests with customers. I only judge them on their performance and address issues as they occur.

On the personal end and perhaps into the political end a little, one of my best friends is a conservative gay. He worked in the White House for a GOP president and now in the media. I dont want to get into too much more about him, because with research he could be found. Everyone knows he is a gay, knows his partner and doesnt hide it, but that doesnt mean there are some on the conservative side who might not hire him because of it. So in some ways, I do get it. He cant always be open about who he is because some are biased. Just like some on the left who call AA Conservatives Uncle Tom and such all the time. Look at all the stuff Clarence Thomas has to deal with and its not just because he is a conservative, but because he is a BLACK conservative. Why do we expect someone to be of a certain party just because they are....fill in the blank?

And that is how I see the entire issue, you are NO different from anyone else, and should be judged on your actions, if it is even anyone right to judge you. But some are not that way. I just hope you and others vote and do what is best for you, not what you are told to believe because you are...again fill in.

Oh, and back to the Dude Maddow thing. And maybe you will see this as me being inmature again, but when (in my opinion) you put yourself out there as a public figure and spread lies, half truths and practice the art of personal distruction (See 100+ segments against Chris Christie) day after day, you are going to get stufff like this. And you have to admit she looks like a dude. But if it helps, I say worse stuff about Olbermann day after day.

Thanks again for reading and I hope you take this for what it is, in the end we are all different, yet so similar. Thanks! Bob

Quote: bobsims

This is the kind of thinking (sic) that is causing America's decline. We are rapidly becoming a North American Brazil. A violent, corrupt, dysfunctional bankrupt state governed by racist black and brown socialist demagogues in league with a tiny white leftist elite.
Meanwhile in China and the rest of Asia they would put a boot firmly in the ass of a single black/hispanic "dreamer" who ever had the temerity to show up on their shores and demand a welfare check and citizenship for their kids.
Guess who wins?

My response is to quote your first line.

Quote:

This is the kind of thinking (sic) that is causing America's decline.

Does that mean I only get half-credit since I used your insult back at you?

Quote: Boz

First off I want to Thank You for taking the time to write a long well thought out post. I wouldnt expect anything else as you always present yourself in that manner.

Oh, and back to the Dude Maddow thing. And maybe you will see this as me being inmature again, but when (in my opinion) you put yourself out there as a public figure and spread lies, half truths and practice the art of personal distruction (See 100+ segments against Chris Christie) day after day, you are going to get stufff like this. And you have to admit she looks like a dude. But if it helps, I say worse stuff about Olbermann day after day.

Thanks again for reading and I hope you take this for what it is, in the end we are all different, yet so similar. Thanks! Bob

Thanks for the compliment in your opening lines. I do try to be respectful in expressing my thoughts. I actually enjoy discussions with open-minded folks, even folks that tend to lean the other direction from myself. That is why this forum and this thread in particular are disappointing. Very few have any sort of open mind and want to have a real discussion. Most just want to hammer home their own views. Mr Duffman wants to go as far as to decide my views.

I think it is a little weak to criticize someone based on looks, but I will go ahead and give you a pass on the Maddow thing. She doesn't look like a 'dude' to me, she looks like a lesbo. That typical 'butchy' type lesbo, but a lesbo. I won't pretend to understand a thing about them, including the 'butchy' stuff with the short haircuts. It was a little surprising to learn that she knows nothing about sports. Breaks the stereotype, in that regard.

Thing about Maddow, she looks like a lesbian, sure, but people keep describing her as "macho." She doesn't look "macho" to me at all. She's so folksy and twee, it shocked me to learn she was six feet tall. I think the term "dogwhistle" is a bit abused, but... that there's a dogwhistle.

What is the Liberal stance nowadays? (You be quiet for a minute, AZD =p)

Terapined made a comment elsewhere about "Liberal views", and it struck me that I have no idea what they are. I once considered myself at least "liberal", once upon a time. I still hold views, deep views, which are most assuredly "left", and I will continue to hold them for the foreseeable future. But as far as the party is concerned, I have absolutely no idea what y'all are up to.

When I was coming up, being liberal meant a certain thing. What I most remember is how chill it was. Hippies, stoners, skaters, all liberal. Black folks? We're cool with them. Gay? Go ahead. Need a buck? Yeah, a few cents in taxes is fine by me. It sort of seemed (to very young Face) that it was the party of happiness. Conservatives? Ha! Old, fat, rich, white guys that hated everything that wasn't old, fat, rich, and white. Oh yeah, and smeared with a healthy dose of His Godliness. As long as you weren't brown. "Italian" was about as dark as you could get, but even then... they got their eye on you.

I look around today, and I do not see the same thing. I see a shift from the "party of acceptance" to the "party who deems what is acceptable". And I might even ask you to read that again. From "party of acceptance" to "party who deems what is acceptable". I'm having a hard time talking myself out of that, as it seems so obviously true.

I'm still totally fine with one who has "liberal views". As I said, I hold many myself. But anytime someone proclaims "I am Liberal", big "L", and said with pride, 10 times out of 10 I find they're a person who I'm gonna wind up fantasizing laying hands on. Some of you... God, I really want to punch your face (generic "you", not anyone here).

So I'm asking in an attempt to find out what changed. I know I have changed a bit, but I know how I changed and it doesn't account for the difference. Is it just a product of media, which sensationalizes topics and skews appearance? Are the wrong people getting the mic and casting a shadow on the party? Or is what I've been feeling actually happening?

There's a bunch of liberals here. Explain your party in the year 2015. What is it that you aim to do?

(P.S. I'm a young, thin, poor, red, atheist. Just thought I'd put that out there before someone labeled me a conservative ;))

Quote: Face

(You be quiet for a minute, AZD =p)

I'm going to let this go except for one thing

Quote:

When I was coming up, being liberal meant a certain thing. What I most remember is how chill it was. Hippies, stoners, skaters, all liberal. Black folks? We're cool with them. Gay? Go ahead. Need a buck? Yeah, a few cents in taxes is fine by me. It sort of seemed (to very young Face) that it was the party of happiness. Conservatives? Ha! Old, fat, rich, white guys that hated everything that wasn't old, fat, rich, and white. Oh yeah, and smeared with a healthy dose of His Godliness. As long as you weren't brown. "Italian" was about as dark as you could get, but even then... they got their eye on you.

I'm no rich.

I have been personally called out so will take a stab at this.

Quote: Face

What is the Liberal stance nowadays? (You be quiet for a minute, AZD =p)

Depends, Whats the issue?

Quote: Face

Terapined made a comment elsewhere about "Liberal views", and it struck me that I have no idea what they are. I once considered myself at least "liberal", once upon a time. I still hold views, deep views, which are most assuredly "left", and I will continue to hold them for the foreseeable future. But as far as the party is concerned, I have absolutely no idea what y'all are up to.

Here are the Presidential candidates I voted for. You tell me who my party is?
2012 Obama Dem
2008 Obama Dem
2004 Nader independent
2000 Nader independent
1996 Dole republican
1992 Bush republican
1988 Bush republican
1984 Reagan republican
1980 Anderson independent

Quote: Face

When I was coming up, being liberal meant a certain thing. What I most remember is how chill it was. Hippies, stoners, skaters, all liberal. Black folks? We're cool with them. Gay? Go ahead. Need a buck? Yeah, a few cents in taxes is fine by me. It sort of seemed (to very young Face) that it was the party of happiness. Conservatives? Ha! Old, fat, rich, white guys that hated everything that wasn't old, fat, rich, and white. Oh yeah, and smeared with a healthy dose of His Godliness. As long as you weren't brown. "Italian" was about as dark as you could get, but even then... they got their eye on you.

I get that, growing up, I felt the same.

Quote: Face

I look around today, and I do not see the same thing. I see a shift from the "party of acceptance" to the "party who deems what is acceptable". And I might even ask you to read that again. From "party of acceptance" to "party who deems what is acceptable". I'm having a hard time talking myself out of that, as it seems so obviously true..

Are you referring to the flag? If you fly a confederate on your personal property, that is totally acceptable..
You have that right and I would fight for you to have that right. Just keep it on your property, it does not belong in our property (public property)
Sure I would never ever display it personally, but you have rights and I will not infringe on those rights.
I also have rights, if I don't buy Kid Rock cd's because he flys the flag, I have that right also.
Its not about acceptance or not accepted in regards to Kid Rock, its the incredulousness that this guy is able to sell cd's. I've heard the music if that's what you call it.

Quote: Face

I'm still totally fine with one who has "liberal views". As I said, I hold many myself. But anytime someone proclaims "I am Liberal", big "L", and said with pride, 10 times out of 10 I find they're a person who I'm gonna wind up fantasizing laying hands on. Some of you... God, I really want to punch your face (generic "you", not anyone here)...

I am Liberal w/pride
I am Liberal w/pride
I am Liberal w/pride
I am Liberal w/pride
I am Liberal w/pride
I am Liberal w/pride
I am Liberal w/pride
I am Liberal w/pride
I am Liberal w/pride
I am Liberal w/pride

Ouch, that hurt. Keep your hands to your self, Face hurt a face:-)

I am not liberal w/pride. I am terapined w/pride, and that's a small "t"

Quote: Face

So I'm asking in an attempt to find out what changed. I know I have changed a bit, but I know how I changed and it doesn't account for the difference. Is it just a product of media, which sensationalizes topics and skews appearance? Are the wrong people getting the mic and casting a shadow on the party? Or is what I've been feeling actually happening?)

its just a product of media, which sensationalizes topics and skews appearance.
the wrong people are getting the mic and casting a shadow on the party
Hmm, looks like you answered your own questions. That was easy.

Quote: Face

There's a bunch of liberals here. Explain your party in the year 2015. What is it that you aim to do?

My party in the year 2015 was July 4th weekend Grateful Dead Soldier Field . What a party. Fri nite smoked, the show was so hot, I thought Chicago was going to catch of fire. That's how hot the party was.
Without a doubt, best damm party in 20 years.
My aim was to have fun. What other aim is here. Heading to Vegas couple weeks. Meet me face and I will show and explain my party :-)

Quote: Face

(P.S. I'm a young, thin, poor, red, atheist. Just thought I'd put that out there before someone labeled me a conservative ;))

I'm old slightly overweight employed tie-dye deadhead. Putting it out there before somebody labels me a lib with a capitol L with pride.

So.

My personal definition of Liberal is: open to change.
Conservative: prefers status quo.

Those were pretty broad but valid until the early 90's, in the days when people spoke directly about issues, held positions that might differ, and would work to find compromise or common ground, both with the goal of serving their constituents and their country.

(Hey, terapined! My mom was Iowa campaign manager for John Anderson in 1980. Thanks for your vote!)

Liberal, as you're referencing it, was re-defined as a pejorative in the early 90's. Credit Lee Atwood and Rush Limbaugh primarily for the start, many in the supporting cast, with a special nod to Newt Gingrich. Liberals do not, in the main, believe in or pursue many of the extreme positions they are held to have by those who wish to discredit them. It's a tactic. It's driven by money, power, and hidden objectives, and holds at its root a contempt not just for those from whom they differ, but especially for those they manipulate to lead. They have undermined the concepts of conciliation, integrity, honest negotiations, many others.

If you want to gain supporters, take their pain and give it a target outside themselves, no matter how unlikely. Take a stance that everybody believes in, claim it for yourself, and more importantly, claim your political opponents are opposed. If you're losing an argument on the merits, throw back an unrelated counterclaim to discredit your opponent, mock their looks, make up clever derogatory phrases about them, blame a third party who doesn't pass the blame fast enough themselves, or claim an isolated nutjob represents the entire position. Say this enough times on sympathetic media, quote each other, publish things on the internet you can then quote on the air, and rely on the miniscule attention span of the public to make it conventional wisdom. (Lots of those tactics very evident in these political threads, btw.)

You, Face, are a good and decent person. You know many others who are both "Liberals" and "Conservatives" under the new (IMO skewed, though we may now be stuck with them) definitions, and if you're unable to resolve the labels with the people you know and their motives as you understand them, I would strongly suggest you check your premises and follow your own best judgment rather than accepting ANY hyperbole as truth. Lots more work to do it that way; most folks don't seem to bother any more. But trust your skepticism whenever you hear a false note or anything stated as generalities or absolutes; the hyping people depend on you accepting what they say at face value, because that builds their power.

Quote: Face

(P.S. I'm a young, thin, poor, red, atheist. Just thought I'd put that out there before someone labeled me a conservative ;))

I'm not a liberal so I can't answer your question, but I just wanted to comment on this statement.

First off I have no clue what red means?
But, being young, thin, and an atheist, and poor should have nothing to do with being less or more conservative.

I am an athesit and have a very untraditional lifestyle, young (low 20s), and very inshape (I think so anyway) and I proudly call myself conservative.

I think the economy, property/income rights, and self-defense rights, and national strength, are the issues that make people conservative.

Your automatic defense that you felt was neccessary against a generalization that is frequently portrayed (that all conservatives are fat homophobic Christian Rednecks), shows how far from reality the left is. Go to any conservative event and the diversity would suprise most people, but the cameras usually focus on the obnoxious Redneck with the "Impeach Obama" sign.

I will give the left, they are excellent at propaganda, and Excell in making people feel horrible about themselves for voting against the left, and constantly play the politcally correct cards.

Quote: Gandler

Your automatic defense that you felt was neccessary against a generalization that is frequently portrayed (that all conservatives are fat homophobic Christian Rednecks), shows how far from reality the left is. Go to any conservative event and the diversity would suprise most people, but the cameras usually focus on the obnoxious Redneck with the "Impeach Obama" sign.

Now live in Tampa.
Once the nominations are set, We get many visits from the Presidential candidates, VP candidates, and even the wives. That's how important this area is. FL is a pretty evenly divided state, north Florida red state Jacksonville and pan handle which is deep south country, southern Florida Hispanic blue Miami. The key I4 Tampa Orlando corridor determines if FL goes blue or red.

I went to the vp candidate Ryan political rally in Oldsmar FL 3 yrs ago.
Its the only huge conservative rally I have been to.
Its real close and was on the weekend.
Maybe this rally was the exception, but I have to be honest, the crowd did not look diverse. Solid white actually.

Quote: terapined

Now live in Tampa.
Once the nominations are set, We get many visits from the Presidential candidates, VP candidates, and even the wives. That's how important this area is. FL is a pretty evenly divided state, north Florida red state Jacksonville and pan handle which is deep south country, southern Florida Hispanic blue Miami. The key I4 Tampa Orlando corridor determines if FL goes blue or red.

I went to the vp candidate Ryan political rally in Oldsmar FL 3 yrs ago.
Its the only huge conservative rally I have been to.
Its real close and was on the weekend.
Maybe this rally was the exception, but I have to be honest, the crowd did not look diverse. Solid white actually.

To clarify by diverse, I don't just mean racially diverse.

But as for race, you also, have to take into account where it was. I know nothing about race stats in that area, but in much of America white people are the majority, so seeing more white people than black and hispanic people should not be surprising.


But if you were to go to an event where I live (southern NJ), I would bet it would be far more racially diverse than it sounds there.

Quote: beachbumbabs

So.


Liberal, as you're referencing it, was re-defined as a pejorative in the early 90's. Credit Lee Atwood and Rush Limbaugh primarily for the start, many in the supporting cast, with a special nod to Newt Gingrich. Liberals do not, in the main, believe in or pursue many of the extreme positions they are held to have by those who wish to discredit them. It's a tactic. It's driven by money, power, and hidden objectives, and holds at its root a contempt not just for those from whom they differ, but especially for those they manipulate to lead. They have undermined the concepts of conciliation, integrity, honest negotiations, many others..

I read your post a couple times, then again before I started typing. "They have undermined"? Who is they?

Quote: TwoFeathersATL

I read your post a couple times, then again before I started typing. "They have undermined"? Who is they?

My position is that the ruling class on BOTH sides only care about money and power being in their hands--they handle it differently, but it is not good either way. It isn't like they want to do "good things" as much as they want to retain power. We've allowed them to be stay the ruling class by not firing them. If someone comes up with a movement to change things, they get labeled homophobic names ("tea baggers") by people who say they are for "equality" and the liberal-leaning folks that want change, too, move away form the movement so as not to offend anyone. I'm sure the same thin would happen if some liberals tried to fire Pelosi and Reid...

BOTH sides, the upper gang of them, are the same.

We don't fix it.

I can't think of it, but when the Iraq War got started and Bush still had astronomic approval ratings, I remember someone saying that Liberals are the party of Mommy and Conservatives are the Party of Daddy. When times are good and the economy is booming people flock to the liberals because they are the party of feel good, you can do have more of a free spirit, but when the crap hits the fan people flock to the Conservatives as they tend to distinguish better what is needed over what is wanted.

Liberals and Conservatives both wish to help the poor but they wish to do it in different ways. Liberals wish to have the state take care of them by taxing the rich, conservatives would rather the help be given through charitable organizations that they donate their money to, whether it be the church or other organization. Liberals view compassion by how many people are being helped by specific programs, conservatives measure compassion by how many people no longer need that help and can function on their own.

Quote: TwoFeathersATL

I read your post a couple times, then again before I started typing. "They have undermined"? Who is they?

That particular part was referencing what Face was saying about Liberals, and what I was saying about how the word has changed in the hands of the semanticians with an agenda. IMO, as a moderate, this stuff was started (politically) in the modern era by Republican advisor Lee Atwater, and it took at least a decade for the Liberals/Democrats to catch up; they were too busy playing earnest defense and being caught off-guard/bewildered by the tactics. They've caught up some now, but one of the hardest things to find any more is an objective expert on anything; everybody's got an angle, everybody's being paid to say stuff, sometimes stuff they don't even believe themselves, everything has a spin. Tiresome. We're all being played and pandered to, all the time.

I think you're around my age, but Face and a lot of the younger guys on here only know one kind of politics; the nasty kind that started around 35 years ago now and ramped up about 22 years ago. (Not that there aren't other nasty politics from further back, but what I think is new is the brazen-ness with which people simply lie-lie-lie and if it gets heard and repeated often enough, it somehow becomes truth without basis.) So they don't know what a Congress looks like that can debate something complex on the merits, enact a law and move on. They aren't inspired to join the Peace Corps by a politician, or take up civic leadership because back then, if you had the skills, you served your community. FDR, HST, DDE and JFK were inspirational political leaders; who could match them since? LBJ was elected out of fear and grief. Watergate was a MAJOR shift in our country's perception in trusting and following a President. Ford was a nice guy with no plan or inspiration. Carter was a nice guy with no balls or leadership skills. Reagan was the biggest sock puppet ever elected until George W. came in and made him look good. George H.W. had great promise but had sold his principles to be Reagan's VP and never got his feet back under him as President. Clinton was potentially great but had several fatal flaws. And Obama has done some great things and some awful things but been surrounded by so much noise and hatred it will take a century for anyone to objectively judge his presidency.

We had Joe McCarthy in the 50's making wild accusations and fear-mongering. It worked for a couple of years, until people started standing up against his crap; that time the country came to the conventional wisdom that he was a bad influence.

Rush Limbaugh is our modern McCarthy, using many of the same tactics. He's been repudiated by the middle and left, but the country as a whole has not moved on from him. Keith Olbermann was doing some of the same stuff from the left, but the country repudiated him, including his base, so he's mostly gone the way of McCarthy. Now, post Citizen United, you've got any number of manipulators using huge money to game the system, including the Koch Brothers, Adelson, Soros, some Hollywood money, some big banking money, others. And that stage is set against a world so completely inundated with information that people vote on a soundbyte they heard, a factoid spewed by a commentator they like, or a hot-button issue that's largely irrelevant but so emotionally charged that people vote against their own best interests just to take a moral stand. Fear-mongering is the basis for nearly all political stances now, from Global Warming to Illegal Immigration; only the screamers change depending on the issue. And if you can't win based on scaring people into your POV, well then you demonize the other side. And we're back to Liberal being a curse word.

Liberal/conservative. Interesting Face.

I know in my own case, I have different views on different subjects, some more liberal, some more conservative. I know AZD will fight me on that as he seems to want to label me a liberal and make my decisions for me.

The fact is that in my own case, social issues, and gay marriage in particular has been the top issue for me, so I have a history of backing liberals in my adult life. Now that the gay marriage issue is over, I can focus on other issues and I really find myself taking a conservative position on many of them.

But there are a couple things that stop me from embracing the republican party. One is they appear to be a party of limitations, mostly whites, more male than female. With those demographic shrinking daily, you would have though they would have reached out to expand their 'tent'. There are many minorities and gays and women that hold conservative values, that would be a natural fit in the republican party, but instead of reaching out to try to expand their party, the republican response has been just the opposite. Instead of growing their side, they want to try to stop the other side from voting.

Republican backers on this site, will say that is not the case, but it clearly is. In state after state, under republican control, there have been new voter Id laws, cutting back on early voting, almost anything they can think of to make it harder for the other side to vote. Repubs will tell you these measures aren't aimed at democrats, but it is very clear it impacts democratic voters more than republicans. I just can't be a part of anything like that. This is America and people have the right to vote. Doesn't matter if you are voting the same as me or not, people have a right to vote and it should be as easy as we can make it, not as hard.

You win by having good ideas and expanding your party, not by limiting the opponent.

Second issue that I am more and more concerned about with republicans, is they are combining more and more religion into their politics. We are supposed to have separation of church and state. It's what this country was founded on, and I see the republicans heading in the wrong direction on that one.

Don't get me wrong, there is a lot to dislike about democrats too and I, personally am finding more and more things to not like about them. It really is way past time that we have more than 2 options in this country. And I am not talking about some protest vote, but a legitimate third and/or fourth parties. I fear that is just a dream. :(

Trump - check
American Flag - check
Money - check
White House - check
WW2 Waffen-SS infantry - check

Quote: beachbumbabs

That particular part was referencing what Face was saying about Liberals, and what I was saying about how the word has changed in the hands of the semanticians with an agenda. IMO, as a moderate, this stuff was started (politically) in the modern era by Republican advisor Lee Atwater, and it took at least a decade for the Liberals/Democrats to catch up; they were too busy playing earnest defense and being caught off-guard/bewildered by the tactics. They've caught up some now, but one of the hardest things to find any more is an objective expert on anything; everybody's got an angle, everybody's being paid to say stuff, sometimes stuff they don't even believe themselves, everything has a spin. Tiresome. We're all being played and pandered to, all the time.

I think you're around my age, but Face and a lot of the younger guys on here only know one kind of politics; the nasty kind that started around 35 years ago now and ramped up about 22 years ago. (Not that there aren't other nasty politics from further back, but what I think is new is the brazen-ness with which people simply lie-lie-lie and if it gets heard and repeated often enough, it somehow becomes truth without basis.) So they don't know what a Congress looks like that can debate something complex on the merits, enact a law and move on. They aren't inspired to join the Peace Corps by a politician, or take up civic leadership because back then, if you had the skills, you served your community. FDR, HST, DDE and JFK were inspirational political leaders; who could match them since? LBJ was elected out of fear and grief. Watergate was a MAJOR shift in our country's perception in trusting and following a President. Ford was a nice guy with no plan or inspiration. Carter was a nice guy with no balls or leadership skills. Reagan was the biggest sock puppet ever elected until George W. came in and made him look good. George H.W. had great promise but had sold his principles to be Reagan's VP and never got his feet back under him as President. Clinton was potentially great but had several fatal flaws. And Obama has done some great things and some awful things but been surrounded by so much noise and hatred it will take a century for anyone to objectively judge his presidency.

We had Joe McCarthy in the 50's making wild accusations and fear-mongering. It worked for a couple of years, until people started standing up against his crap; that time the country came to the conventional wisdom that he was a bad influence.

Rush Limbaugh is our modern McCarthy, using many of the same tactics. He's been repudiated by the middle and left, but the country as a whole has not moved on from him. Keith Olbermann was doing some of the same stuff from the left, but the country repudiated him, including his base, so he's mostly gone the way of McCarthy. Now, post Citizen United, you've got any number of manipulators using huge money to game the system, including the Koch Brothers, Adelson, Soros, some Hollywood money, some big banking money, others. And that stage is set against a world so completely inundated with information that people vote on a soundbyte they heard, a factoid spewed by a commentator they like, or a hot-button issue that's largely irrelevant but so emotionally charged that people vote against their own best interests just to take a moral stand. Fear-mongering is the basis for nearly all political stances now, from Global Warming to Illegal Immigration; only the screamers change depending on the issue. And if you can't win based on scaring people into your POV, well then you demonize the other side. And we're back to Liberal being a curse word.

I'm in my early 40's, and I remember the echoes of civility in politics (or was it only a dream?!) I think a lot has to do (or at least coincides) with the Telecom Act of 1996. With restrictions lifted on how many news outlets one entity could own, it seems like we hear fewer and fewer distinct voices. I remember in the late 90's & early 2000's -- the infancy of current talk radio -- there was a lot of diversity in the programming. Certainly more moderate and independent commentators, and even a good amount of (Gasp!) non-political programming. Over time, the stations I listened to replaced those with more hard-line shows. And when I'm in other parts of the country, I hear the same programming, on stations owned by the same parent companies.

I think this has only served to divide people into one camp or another. I now see people whose thinking is shaped solely, seemingly, by these shows. Most independent thinkers I know (and unfortunately, there aren't too many of them) don't agree with everything their party or news commentator has to offer. I believe there is a lot of common ground between those who identify themselves as 'conservative' and those who may call themselves 'liberal,' but in this "You are either with us or against us!" atmosphere, IMO created by the media, we rarely see it.

Trump supporters ditch Macy's.

30,000 is not a huge number, but this was done without any push from some larger group. Takeaways are that the guy has some support this time, unlike previous "runs" that he had. What he is saying is resonating with large groups of people. Even the Democrat candidate should be wary of wire to wire support for illegal immigration, because many parts of the Democrat base get hurt by it.

The thing will be, does Trump expand on his issues. One issue will not cut it.

Quote: AZDuffman

Trump supporters ditch Macy's.

30,000 is not a huge number, but this was done without any push from some larger group. Takeaways are that the guy has some support this time, unlike previous "runs" that he had. What he is saying is resonating with large groups of people. Even the Democrat candidate should be wary of wire to wire support for illegal immigration, because many parts of the Democrat base get hurt by it.

The thing will be, does Trump expand on his issues. One issue will not cut it.

Macy's made a business decision.
Hispanic buying power in 2015, 1.5 trillion USD
vs 30,000 cards.

Its a no brainer. Its about profits. You would think conservatives would applaud a business making moves to improve the bottom line.

The article does not say that 30,000 people have cut up their Macy's card. It says they've received 30,000 complaints, many from people who have "claimed" to cut up their Macy's card.

I suspect when it's all said and done this will be a net win for Macy's.

Quote: ams288

The article does not say that 30,000 people have cut up their Macy's card. It says they've received 30,000 complaints, many from people who have "claimed" to cut up their Macy's card.

I suspect when it's all said and done this will be a net win for Macy's.

Maybe something like this is what Sears/K-Mart needs to try and stay in business. Call all conservative white males racists and say you don't want their business. I'm sure many would flock from Walmart to cash their government checks there instead and waste them on trivial junk.

Quote: Boz

Maybe something like this is what Sears/K-Mart needs to try and stay in business. Call all conservative white males racists and say you don't want their business. I'm sure many would flock from Walmart to cash their government checks there instead and waste them on trivial junk.

Is disassociating oneself from Donald Trump due to his awful comments equatable to calling all conservative white males racists now?

Quote: ams288

Is disassociating oneself from Donald Trump due to his awful comments equatable to calling all conservative white males racists now?

You know, it might in many minds.
Many minds.

Trump announces he's worth $10 billion:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/15/politics/donald-trump-financial-disclosure/index.html

This line made me legitimately LOL:

""This report was not designed for a man of Mr. Trump's massive wealth," the press release said."

Quote: TwoFeathersATL

You know, it might in many minds.
Many minds.

Thats absurd. Many white republicans cant stand him.
He is the Kiss of rock. Kiss was the most loved and hated band.
Same with Trump

Quote: terapined

Thats absurd. Many white republicans cant stand him.
He is the Kiss of rock. Kiss was the most loved and hated band.
Same with Trump

Trump's favorable/unfavorable numbers were so bad, he was the most hated Presidential candidate EVER when he announced his candidacy.

Now, here we are just a few weeks later and he's at the top of the GOP polls and we are supposed to pretend he isn't just an attention whore who thrives on the publicity.

Insane.

Quote: ams288

The article does not say that 30,000 people have cut up their Macy's card. It says they've received 30,000 complaints, many from people who have "claimed" to cut up their Macy's card.

I suspect when it's all said and done this will be a net win for Macy's.

I'm not talking about Macy's, I am saying this is an issue that resonates.

Quote: AZDuffman

I'm not talking about Macy's, I am saying this is an issue that resonates.

With a certain chunk of the electorate, it absolutely resonates.

But there is a much larger chunk who either a) hates Trump and/or b) finds his comments deplorable.

Quote: ams288

With a certain chunk of the electorate, it absolutely resonates.

But there is a much larger chunk who either a) hates Trump and/or b) finds his comments deplorable.

"Larger" remains to be seen. But any pol who proceeds thinking Americans love illegal immigration should think twice.

Quote: AZDuffman

"Larger" remains to be seen. But any pol who proceeds thinking Americans love illegal immigration should think twice.

I don't think there is a single pol who thinks Americans "love" illegal immigration.

Quote: ams288

I don't think there is a single pol who thinks Americans "love" illegal immigration.

Really? I'd suggest checking out sanctuary cities and calls for a general amnesty. Also the Obama Admin actively fighting local law enforcement when they enforce immigration law. Calls to allow them welfare, drivers licenses, and even to vote in local elections! Most of the Democrats and a few in the GOP seem to think Americans love it based on their actions.