Forum Politics
Quote: VCUSkyhawkYou are now my mortal enemy.
I thought you were a Libertarian? I should be allowed to say whatever I want as long as it doesn't threaten the public safety.
Libertarians would actually have a chance in the POTUS races were it not for the Constitution.
Quote: RigondeauxOn the same page. I do think Republicans figured it out first but Dems are almost caught up.
You appeal to identity and emotion. Tell people all their problems are someone else's fault. Whatever group you belong to is good. The other group is bad. (Divide.)
With your voters wrapped up in all that stuff, you are now free to totally disregard their interests and expand wealth and power for you and your cronies. (Conquer)
Yeah, that could be called the, "Hitler game plan." It works pretty well, unfortunately.
Quote: AZDuffmanThat is the Democrat playbook to a T. All the fault of "the rich" and white people. Minorities good, white folks bad. (see various ethnic "pride" in wikipedia if you doubt that one!)
BTW: Hillary is a leftist. Corporate money has nothing to do with it.
Republicans: "They're taking our jobs and living off of our welfare system!"
Enough said.
The sooner you guys all realize that NEITHER SIDE IS INNOCENT the sooner we can actually have meaningful discourse about actual issues and ideals.
Quote: Mission146I thought you were a Libertarian? I should be allowed to say whatever I want as long as it doesn't threaten the public safety.
Libertarians would actually have a chance in the POTUS races were it not for the Constitution.
I do believe in your right to say whatever you want, you seditious traitor ;)
Quote: Mission146
Asked and answered. Mostly because it is directly responsible for the two-party system.
Any system will eventually get down to two major parties or coalitions of parties. Except for those that get down to just one. Japan and Mexico to name two. It is just how humanity works.
Quote: AZDuffmanAny system will eventually get down to two major parties or coalitions of parties. Except for those that get down to just one. Japan and Mexico to name two. It is just how humanity works.
Nope. Great Britain.
Granted, two parties carry a huge majority of people between the two of them, but they often need to form coalitions with the minor parties in order to get anything done, otherwise they don't have enough individual strength in Parliament. (Numbers)
So, you see all kinds of different thoughts and ideas expressed.
Same thing with Australia.
Quote: AZDuffmanYup. It is. Why?
Because you seem prone too just constructing whatever definitions or narratives make you feel good. Which is sort of what I was discussing earlier.
Quote:
No, incorrect. By this definition liberals want Roe v Wade repealed and Conservatives want it to remain.
A better definition is:
Liberals want equality of outcome. They get upset in income or any other kind of inequality and believe in robust government action to "fix" the inequalities.
Conservatives want equality of opportunity. They do not get upset if some people do better than others as they see it as a result of some people working harder than others, or just being naturally better at things. They do not want the government deciding who should get what.
The social change liberals favor is abortion legalization and access. Obviously, libs and cons, in this sense, are not going to constantly flip sides on every issue whenever a change occurs.
However, over time things can shift. It would no longer be a conservative opinion to want the states to be English colonies. That would be a REACTIONARY opinion, meaning you want to actively move things back how they were in the past.
Then you have radicals. RADICALS want to completely chuck out a fundamental component of a society and replace it with something they think is better.
So it goes reactionary, conservative, liberal, radical.
Whatever meanings you wish to assign to words, these senses of those 4 words have been found useful for a long time by people who want to think more clearly about the subject.
Then you have left and right. And libertarian and authoritarian...
Quote: AZDuffmanLiberals want equality of outcome. They get upset in income or any other kind of inequality and believe in robust government action to "fix" the inequalities.
Conservatives want equality of opportunity. They do not get upset if some people do better than others as they see it as a result of some people working harder than others, or just being naturally better at things. They do not want the government deciding who should get what.
Since it appears you are a Jordon Peterson fan, you should really listen to his talks about how dangerous tribalism and identity politics are, regardless of which “side” it comes from.
Quote: RigondeauxBecause you seem prone too just constructing whatever definitions or narratives make you feel good. Which is sort of what I was discussing earlier.
So if I steal money from you that is theft but if someone else votes for me to steal your money that's magically not theft? Sorry just trying to understand. Can I hold up a liquor store and say it's ok we took a vote?
Quote: Mission146isidewith.com
I like that site to give people a general idea of parties, as they are presently defined, and what candidates you most agree with for Senate, some state positions (depending on state) and what presidential candidate from 2016 you most agree with.
I think it's somewhat accurate in the context of what the words mean today.
I don't know that I've read enough of your posts to have an opinion, but you can answer as many questions as you like on isidewith. I just did it not long ago and here are a few of my stats:
Libertarian: 69%
Socialist: 63%
Democratic: 59%
Green: 58%
Women's Equality Party: 55% (Didn't know that's a thing)
Republican 43%
Constitution(Sucks) Party: 33%
I bet AZDuffman would be Constitution Party!
Here are the presumed 2020 Presidential Candidates the site thinks I most agree with:
Oprah Winfrey: 68%
Michelle Obama: 67%
Elizabeth Warren: 65%
Bernie Sanders: 61%
Rand Paul: 61%
Joe Biden: 57%
Ben Shapiro: 56%
If there was a Libertarian on there who doesn't happen to be a complete friggin' idiot like Rand Paul, then that would probably be the biggest percentage. I remember I was with Gary Johnson to high 70-something percent one time I took it and low 80% the time I took it and answered even more questions.
Parties
Here are the political parties ranked from most to least similar to your beliefs
66%
Republican
65%
Constitution
54%
Libertarian
20%
Democratic
15%
Green
13%
Socialist
Candidates
68%
REPUBLICAN
Mike Pence
67%
REPUBLICAN
Ted Cruz
64%
REPUBLICAN
Ben Shapiro
64%
REPUBLICAN
Marco Rubio
58%
REPUBLICAN
Rand Paul
56%
REPUBLICAN
Mitt Romney
55%
REPUBLICAN
Donald Trump (#MAGA2020)
53%
REPUBLICAN
John Kasich
20%
DEMOCRAT
Bernie Sanders
19%
DEMOCRAT
Oprah Winfrey
Quote: RogerKintSo if I steal money from you that is theft but if someone else votes for me to steal your money that's macically not theft? Sorry just trying to understand. Can I hold up a liquor store and say it's ok we took a vote?
We've been through this before. When you say "votes for me to steal your money" you are begging the question.
Really, it boils down to this. The standard usages of the words taxation and theft denote 2 quite different things.
For example, usually if someone steals my car, they don't let me use it anymore. But if I pay taxes for a road or school, I do get to use it.
If you want to make up your own usage no one can stop you. It's just weird how taxation has all of these marked differences from every other kind of thing in the "theft" category.
And to everyone else you a sound like people who say:
Meat is murder.
Heterosexual sex is rape.
All women are prostitutes.
Etc
As much as I consider myself a libertarian, this is one point I feel the Ron Paul people get wrong.
Just to clarify, I'm not necessarily saying that taxes are bad. I'm just trying to understand the difference. Also I pay all my taxes because incarceration is not coo. Plus, Jesus said give to Caesar what is Caesar's. So even if it is theft just do ehhhhtttttt!
One argument I could see is paper money is printed by the powers that be. They loan it to you for your labor but really they want it all back and, rightly so, because it belongs to them.
Here's a good example of what I'm talking about.
If you look at the political party results for RS, and you look at mine, you would think the two of us couldn't be any more different. But, when you put the party identifications away and start looking at individual views on individual issues, you come to find that you have more in common with the next guy than you thought.
How do I know?
Because if you look at our preferred candidate rankings for 2020, you'll notice that RS is with Ben Shapiro on 64% of issues, whereas I'm with Ben Shapiro 56% of the time. In other words, we both agree with Ben Shapiro on a majority of stuff.
So, what does that mean?
Because RS and I both agree with Ben Shapiro on a majority of stuff, we must agree one another on a few things, because it's mathematically impossible for us not to.
So, you have common ground with everyone in at least some way. It's a good thing to keep in mind.
Quote: Mission146EVERYONE & RS
Here's a good example of what I'm talking about.
If you look at the political party results for RS, and you look at mine, you would think the two of us couldn't be any more different. But, when you put the party identifications away and start looking at individual views on individual issues, you come to find that you have more in common with the next guy than you thought.
How do I know?
Because if you look at our preferred candidate rankings for 2020, you'll notice that RS is with Ben Shapiro on 64% of issues, whereas I'm with Ben Shapiro 56% of the time. In other words, we both agree with Ben Shapiro on a majority of stuff.
So, what does that mean?
Because RS and I both agree with Ben Shapiro on a majority of stuff, we must agree one another on a few things, because it's mathematically impossible for us not to.
So, you have common ground with everyone in at least some way. It's a good thing to keep in mind.
Indeed.
Ben Shapiro is perhaps the only person I’d vote for (right now) president over Donald J Trump.
Milo Yaienaienaiuoianaopololilis is up there, too.
Quote: RogerKintSo the taxes I pay for things I dont use are considered thieved then? I'm trying to understand the difference. Or are you saying it's theft but people don't think of it like that so don't use the word like dat?
Just to clarify, I'm not necessarily saying that taxes are bad. I'm just trying to understand the difference. Also I pay all my taxes because incarceration is not coo
They are just different words. You touched upon something yourself. You aren't necessarily saying taxes are bad. Wouldn't you say that theft is almost always bad?
Theft is usually something that is illegal and immoral. Perhaps you could say it is almost universally seen that way. Every religion I know of prohibits theft. But none of them prohibit taxes.
As I said, usually theives are taking something purely for themselves. Your tv was yours. Now it is mine. FU.
Some taxes are misappropriated and we all pay for stuff we object to. However the basic idea of taxation is not that someone takes your stuff and gives it to themselves out of pure self interest.
Quote: RSQuote: Mission146EVERYONE & RS
Ben Shapiro is perhaps the only person I’d vote for (right now) president over Donald J Trump.
Milo Yaienaienaiuoianaopololilis is up there, too.
They could not be any more different. Big Sharpio fan, Milo is just a troll.I got a plan, we take all your picks we reverse them like one of those twilight zone episodes where everything is the opposite. You say "black" we go white.
Quote: RigondeauxThey are just different words. You touched upon something yourself. You aren't necessarily saying taxes are bad. Wouldn't you say that theft is almost always bad?
Theft is usually something that is illegal and immoral. Perhaps you could say it is almost universally seen that way. Every religion I know of prohibits theft. But none of them prohibit taxes.
As I said, usually theives are taking something purely for themselves. Your tv was yours. Now it is mine. FU.
Some taxes are misappropriated and we all pay for stuff we object to. However the basic idea of taxation is not that someone takes your stuff and gives it to themselves out of pure self interest.
My point was that was not my point ;)
Sometimes taxation feels like not only stealing my TV but then hitting me over the head with it. Have you seen the curriculum in gov schools? Or what has NASA been up to lately LOL.
One could easily make the case we'd be better off if we hadn't declared independence from Britain. Look at Hong Kong for example. What's that line from the Patriot something about exchanging one dictator thousands of miles away for a thousand dictators one mile away.
Quote: VCUSkyhawkQuote: RSQuote: Mission146EVERYONE & RS
Ben Shapiro is perhaps the only person I’d vote for (right now) president over Donald J Trump.
Milo Yaienaienaiuoianaopololilis is up there, too.
They could not be any more different. Big Sharpio fan, Milo is just a troll.
Perhaps. I haven’t seen anything from Milo several months, maybe even a year. But he is definitely more blunt and “in your face”, while Shapiro is more organized / collected / and methodical in his approach.
But there are some excellent YouTube videos of Milo shredding SJWs.
Quote: SOOPOOI believe that most that I would classify as liberals would classify themselves as moderates. Who you voted for in the past is not the deciding factor. It is your present day positions. EvenBob voted for Obama his first term; I doubt anyone would call EvenBob a moderate today.....
My reading of BBB's political posts of the Trump years would make her a liberal. Of course not on every issue, but mostly. Let's hear her response!
From an international perspective the democrat's position on most issues is centrist in most western countries at best. The GOPs posiitons are normally bat-sh## crazy from an international perspective. No one here in Canada is going to privatize health care, expand gun rights or take away a woman's access to abortion, or abolish gay marriage. All of these are on the table in the States.
From my perspective I of course am left. But I have respect for truth and opinions that are formed from facts. I will call out errors on both sides as I see it. But by no means am I moderate. But I see posting my opinions pointless because frankly no one has the patience for it.
Quote: RS
And l2quote plx, we’re a civil forum
Yeah, sorry about that, dont know what the heck happened there.
Quote: AZDuffmanNo, incorrect. By this definition liberals want Roe v Wade repealed and Conservatives want it to remain.
A better definition is:
Liberals want equality of outcome. They get upset in income or any other kind of inequality and believe in robust government action to "fix" the inequalities.
Conservatives want equality of opportunity. They do not get upset if some people do better than others as they see it as a result of some people working harder than others, or just being naturally better at things. They do not want the government deciding who should get what.
I like these definitions a lot. A few thoughts:
-Higher taxes, bigger government and a welfare state do very little to provide equal outcome, therefore they are not liberal values.
-Education, healthcare, and infrastructure are all necessary for anyone to have any opportunity, therefore are a part of conservative ideals.
-In that regard, there are actually as many similarities as differences between the two sides. The equations Republican = Conservative and Democrat = Liberal are usually wrong
-Trump's views on immigration make him the least conservative president in America's history. Conservatives believe that if someone was born into poverty and their only chance to be rewarded for hard work is to leave that life behind by making a geographical change, no government should not put barriers in their path to hard work and success.
There are other reasons, too. Taxes on imports is a direct threat to a free market. Fighting against the free-market is the biggest way to make sure the government decides who gets what. But personally I still like them. Raising prices on consumer goods means people buy less and there is less trash to ruin our planet. Imagine if it was Al Gore giving that as the reason we should raise tariffs instead of Trump telling us why we should raise them. Virtually every person in our entire country would be on the exact opposite side they currently are when it comes to how America should handle trade. Conservative v Liberal almost always ends up being whatever we want it to be. We'll change the definition to whatever it takes to make us feel that we're right and the other side is wrong.
One thing to keep in mind is that in America all taxes are optional. Don't want to pay income taxes? You can opt out by not earning an income. Don't want to pay property taxes? Don't own property? Don't want to pay sales tax? Don't buy stuff.
Or if that is too much of a hardship, take more three-day weekends, own a smaller house, buy fewer and less expensive things. No other thief gives us these options when they steal from us.
My opinion on taxes is that we should try to raise as much revenue as possible in ways where opting out creates the least hardship (and is also easiest to enforce).
Tired of your TV being stolen? Stop owning a TV dumbass!
Freudian slip;?Quote: TomGConservatives believe that if someone was born into poverty and their only chance to be rewarded for hard work is to leave that life behind by making a geographical change, no government should not put barriers in their path to hard work and success.
Quote: RonCSo...let me get this straight...you only started this thread to initiate yet another attack on President Trump? Respectfully, I would like to point out to you that there are already threads here where those attacks are relevant. I think the issue of lies is discussed in those...
Does everyone who posts in a thread about shills have the same favorite President? Maybe that is your point....
I think everyone on the boards knows those threads exist and they are free to visit and engage...or not.
Opinion again...but this thread is not necessary.
I did not start this thread. Somehow, a post I made in Nathan's thread was removed and put in its own thread where there is no context. I did not intend to start a thread and think it is bullshit that a throwaway post from a nonsense thread is moved to its own thread.
so US should send ships to Venezuela for how many million immigrants ?
Quote: dogqckConservatives believe that if someone was born into poverty and their only chance to be rewarded for hard work is to leave that life behind by making a geographical change, no government should not put barriers in their path to hard work and success.
so US should send ships to Venezuela for how many million immigrants ?
If they are left handed and can pitch, bring them in.
Quote: billryanI did not start this thread. Somehow, a post I made in Nathan's thread was removed and put in its own thread where there is no context. I did not intend to start a thread and think it is bullshit that a throwaway post from a nonsense thread is moved to its own thread.
I think it's a good thing, actually.
I kind of felt like the one thread is supposed to be about Trump specifically and the other the Supreme Court. It always seemed to me that the intended topics were always being derailed with general politics talk, (I'm one of the main ones to blame for that) so I was actually going to request permission to start a general politics thread.
I actually wanted to use the OP to encourage everyone to take the isidewith quiz, but it's all good. Still needed a general politics thread.
---I like politics threads more as a regular Member than as an Admin. ;)
Left/right is more complicated because it dates back to the French revolution and where people were sitting in the legislature or whatever. There is more baggage.
But the quick and dirty is that left = more equality and right = more hierarchy.
AZ is ok with more hierarchy as it occurs in our system because he thinks everyone has more or less earned their place. That is a right wing position. You could argue it is conservative in some ways, but it is more plainly right wing.
Conservative views are often right wing. For example, "we should keep the monarchy." But not always. Same for left/liberal.
Then you have authoritarian, vs libertarian. That's pretty obvious, as long as you understand that Libertarian Party doesn't equal libertarian. The Libertarian party are right and libertarian leaning, but there are also left libertarians. Anyway, libertarian means more individual freedom, and authoritarian means more control over individual behavior.
So, there you have it. Try it and see if it don't make your political thinking more clearer and fewer dumb.
Reactionary (change things back) Conservative (keep things this way, let change happen on its own) Liberal (Create change within existing system) Radical (Change the system itself)
Left: Hierarchy is bad. Make more equality. Right: Hierarchy is fine and natural. Equality ain't so hot.
Authoritarian: We need to control behavior. Libertarian: Nah, just let people do whatevs, bro. Pass the weed.
Quote: MaxPenI think I broke that quiz site. At least Constitution was up top for me. I may try again but I don't even like half the questions due to their intrusiveness.
Congratulations, you passed the quiz. If Oprah was not on the bottom of your list, you failed!
Quote: TomGI like these definitions a lot.
I read them somewhere and modified and shortened them to fit how I prefer to explain it. The "wants change" thing I was fed growing up and some college prof in some class I can't remember brought up the abortion thing to show "wants change" is not what it is about. The government spending thing is not so simple, either as the GOP favors military spending. When you drill down and think, it is really about outcome/opportunity and how each side sees it.
Quote:-Higher taxes, bigger government and a welfare state do very little to provide equal outcome, therefore they are not liberal values.
Oh, but they are and for the reasons stated. The welfare state is mostly about providing a more equal outcome, taking money by force from some people and giving it to others. The bigger government is used to rig the system for equal outcomes.
Quote:-Trump's views on immigration make him the least conservative president in America's history. Conservatives believe that if someone was born into poverty and their only chance to be rewarded for hard work is to leave that life behind by making a geographical change, no government should not put barriers in their path to hard work and success.
Show me where Trump is against people moving from say Oregon to Texas and I will buy that. Not the way you have it, though. Conservatives have always been for protecting the border. Liberals are now de facto for open borders. In the 2020 primaries, just watch and you will see any candidate not calling for open borders will have no chance. They will all be calling for amnesty and most for getting rid of ICE.
Quote: MaxPenI think I broke that quiz site. At least Constitution was up top for me. I may try again but I don't even like half the questions due to their intrusiveness.
I had GOP and Constitution essentially tied for first. But the quiz is a bit simplistic on the questions. For example, the abortion question gave the pro-choice side several outs while the pro-life side not as many. That and no sensible quiz should use the term "the rich" in questions. It should be less charged "high earners" or something like that.
Quote: AZDuffmanI had GOP and Constitution essentially tied for first. But the quiz is a bit simplistic on the questions. For example, the abortion question gave the pro-choice side several outs while the pro-life side not as many. That and no sensible quiz should use the term "the rich" in questions. It should be less charged "high earners" or something like that.
Is, “The rich,” a trigger term for those on the right?
I wouldn’t call it a charged term, we all know what it means to ourselves if someone is rich. Besides, it’s possible for a person to be rich whilst never having, “Earned,” anything, so that person would be a rich no-earner.
Where do you say the pro life side has no outs?
Pro-Life
Pro-Choice
Pro-Life, Also Against Abortion Rape/Incest
Pro-Life, Allow for Rape/Incest/Danger to Mother
Pro-Choice, First Three Months Only
Pro-Choice, but only bc Government has no right to ban
Pro-Choice, and provide birth control, sex Ed, etc.
What is your stance if not one of those? If your stance is different, then you should submit to them what you think should be an additional option, maybe they’ll put it in there.
The only other possibility I can think of would be Pro-Life, but you’d allow it for rape/incest but NOT because the mother might be in danger.
Quote: AZDuffmanThis is because liberals usually refuse to classify themselves as "liberal." Until this election cycle, when have you heard Democrat candidates vie to be "liberal?" Conservatives are not afraid of saying who they are, liberals are afraid to do so.
Complete and utter bulls***.
90% of my friends are liberals, and they OWN it.
Quote: TigerWuComplete and utter bulls***.
90% of my friends are liberals, and they OWN it.
Seems like a high percentage of friends to identify a certain way. I dont mean this as an insult, but I dont like to only associate with people who have the same beliefs as I do. I am libertarian who leans a bit conservative, but I would say that I have a fair split of Trump loving and Trump hating friends. Oddly, I have very few libertarian friends.
Quote: Mission146Is, “The rich,” a trigger term for those on the right?
It is a bad term and one that the left has charged up in a negative way. e.g: "Tax cuts for 'the rich.'" Who are "the rich?" Just over $65,000 puts you at the 75th percentile. $109,000 puts you in the top 10%. I know people making that $109K, none would call themselves "the rich." Statistically, though, they really are, being better off than 90% of people. To compare, an IQ of about 120 puts you in the top 10%, are you part of "the smart" then?
Quote:Where do you say the pro life side has no outs?
Pro-Life
Pro-Choice
Pro-Life, Also Against Abortion Rape/Incest
Pro-Life, Allow for Rape/Incest/Danger to Mother
Pro-Choice, First Three Months Only
Pro-Choice, but only bc Government has no right to ban
Pro-Choice, and provide birth control, sex Ed, etc.
What is your stance if not one of those? If your stance is different, then you should submit to them what you think should be an additional option, maybe they’ll put it in there.
The only other possibility I can think of would be Pro-Life, but you’d allow it for rape/incest but NOT because the mother might be in danger.
I am pro-life but it is not a huge issue to me. I am not for an outright ban, but I do think we need to educate on the negatives. I also think these pro-abortion feminists are kind of unbalanced and sick. I think there is something wrong with celebrating abortions. And I think the higher the abortion rate in a society, the more that society is a society in decline, abortion being a symptom, not a cause.
They ain't puttin that in.
Quote: VCUSkyhawkSeems like a high percentage of friends to identify a certain way. I dont mean this as an insult, but I dont like to only associate with people who have the same beliefs as I do. I am libertarian who leans a bit conservative, but I would say that I have a fair split of Trump loving and Trump hating friends. Oddly, I have very few libertarian friends.
Libertarians are rare, so that accounts for the last part.
In my experience, liberals tend to not want to associate with conservatives far, far more than conservatives tend to not want to associate with liberals. I once dated a girl who said her friends actually asked what they should talk about around me and how they should deal with me. Really?
It follows my axiom that conservatives think liberals are misinformed and misguided while liberals cannot stand that they have to share the planet with conservatives.
Quote: AZDuffmanLibertarians are rare, so that accounts for the last part.
In my experience, liberals tend to not want to associate with conservatives far, far more than conservatives tend to not want to associate with liberals.
I have not found this to be the case at all. I find the fringes of both sides are off-put by associating with people with far differing ideologies.
Quote: AZDuffmanIt is a bad term and one that the left has charged up in a negative way. e.g: "Tax cuts for 'the rich.'" Who are "the rich?" Just over $65,000 puts you at the 75th percentile. $109,000 puts you in the top 10%. I know people making that $109K, none would call themselves "the rich." Statistically, though, they really are, being better off than 90% of people.
In that respect, maybe it would be better for them to define a specific number rather than say, “The rich.” In terms of colloquial usage, we each have our own idea what it means. I think the most important point I made is that, “High-Earners,” doesn’t always make sense because some of, “The rich,” never earned anything.
Quote:To compare, an IQ of about 120 puts you in the top 10%, are you part of "the smart" then?
Why, yes. Yes, I am. Thank you.
Quote:I am pro-life but it is not a huge issue to me. I am not for an outright ban, but I do think we need to educate on the negatives. I also think these pro-abortion feminists are kind of unbalanced and sick. I think there is something wrong with celebrating abortions. And I think the higher the abortion rate in a society, the more that society is a society in decline, abortion being a symptom, not a cause.
They ain't puttin that in.
I don’t know what, “Educate on the negatives,” means. That the person won’t have a kid? That there won’t be a kid for someone else to adopt? The, “Negatives,” seem pretty self-explanatory.
We’ve talked about, “Celebrating abortions,” before. I disagree with you to the extent that actually happens.
You can’t take away right to protest, obviously. In my opinion, when an abortion goes ideally, she just goes in, gets an abortion, nobody hassles her about it and she doesn’t really mention it to anyone except friends and family. I don’t even think it should be a political thing, it’s a medical procedure to correct a mistake someone made before it becomes an even bigger...and more permanent...mistake.
Quote: VCUSkyhawkI have not found this to be the case at all. I find the fringes of both sides are off-put by associating with people with far differing ideologies.
I am not talking about fringes, I am talking about the groups in general. I am talking about the pro-choice woman professor. I am talking about the guy who believes global warming "is our biggest challenge today." I am talking about the vegetarian who sees the "I Love Animals--They're Delicious!" sticker on a car. I am talking about the liberal who does not think I "need" a gun.
Put differently, go google news stories about liberals shouting and shutting down conservative speakers. Then look for how many conservatives do the same to liberal speakers. See who is doing more of the silencing.
Quote: AZDuffman
Put differently, go google news stories about liberals shouting and shutting down conservative speakers. Then look for how many conservatives do the same to liberal speakers. See who is doing more of the silencing.
So, I do agree with you there. It use to be a liberal position to defend free speech, not so much anymore. But again, I really dont believe this is most mainstream liberals, but the fringes of the left.
Side note from what I have observed. Far right tends to view liberals as stupid whereas the far left tends to view conservatives as evil.
Quote: Mission146
In that respect, maybe it would be better for them to define a specific number rather than say, “The rich.” In terms of colloquial usage, we each have our own idea what it means. I think the most important point I made is that, “High-Earners,” doesn’t always make sense because some of, “The rich,” never earned anything.
Some haven't. Chelsea Clinton would be the perfect example there. Most, though, did earn their wealth.
Quote:I don’t know what, “Educate on the negatives,” means. That the person won’t have a kid? That there won’t be a kid for someone else to adopt? The, “Negatives,” seem pretty self-explanatory.
Well, start with the dangers of the procedure. That the chances of being able to carry a baby to term later is reduced. Emotional damage, etc. Explain alternatives, like adoption. Pre-1970s we encouraged giving the kid up for adoption. Steve Jobs mother did just that.
Quote:We’ve talked about, “Celebrating abortions,” before. I disagree with you to the extent that actually happens.
Google "I had an abortion" images. Look at the "Keep Abortion Legal" rallies. It is celebrated.
Quote:You can’t take away right to protest, obviously. In my opinion, when an abortion goes ideally, she just goes in, gets an abortion, nobody hassles her about it and she doesn’t really mention it to anyone except friends and family. I don’t even think it should be a political thing, it’s a medical procedure to correct a mistake someone made before it becomes an even bigger...and more permanent...mistake.
I would love it not to be a political thing. You need to convince NOW. not me.
Quote: VCUSkyhawkSo, I do agree with you there. It use to be a liberal position to defend free speech, not so much anymore. But again, I really dont believe this is most mainstream liberals, but the fringes of the left.
When you get riots like we have had in Berkley, one must ask how big the "fringe" really is. I will concede that the fringe concentrates there, however.
Quote:Side note from what I have observed. Far right tends to view liberals as stupid whereas the far left tends to view conservatives as evil.
You are kind of agreeing with my axiom there, just a little more PC than mine is.
Quote: AZDuffmanWhen you get riots like we have had in Berkley, one must ask how big the "fringe" really is.
Well it only takes a small percentage of the population to appear large. So lets start off with the 65 Million people that voted for Hillary Clinton. If say only 15% are in the extreme (I am not saying that is the case just a small example) then that is almost 10 million loons in this country. That is scary. Same for the right.
I use this same example when talking to some of my ultra conservative friends about Islam. There are 1.6 Billion (as of 2010) Muslims in the world, take a small fraction that are violent extremist, lets say .1% (again not saying that is the figure) and that is a scary amount of violent crazy people.
In both of these cases it tends to make the larger group look bad.
Quote: AZDuffman
Well, start with the dangers of the procedure. That the chances of being able to carry a baby to term later is reduced. Emotional damage, etc. Explain alternatives, like adoption. Pre-1970s we encouraged giving the kid up for adoption. Steve Jobs mother did just that.
I want to say that any doctor has a fundamental duty to explain to his/her patient the dangers of a medical procedure. I should certainly like to think that is being done anywhere an abortion is performed.
I don't know about emotional damage. The abortion doctor is unlikely to also be a psychologist or psychiatrist.
I agree that adoption should be presented as an option. Although, I would think that most women have at least a passing familiarity with the concept of adoption already.
Quote:Google "I had an abortion" images. Look at the "Keep Abortion Legal" rallies. It is celebrated.
I want public restrooms to remain legal, does that mean I am celebrating them? If you tried to take public restrooms away from me, I would protest. I need them sometimes.
I Googled what you said, it's mostly just people wearing T-Shirts that say, "I had an abortion." When you said, "Celebrate," I was hoping there would be some libations involved. Wearing a T-Shirt isn't much of a celebration. I'm wearing a, "Rural King," T-Shirt right now, am I celebrating the store?
Quote:I would love it not to be a political thing. You need to convince NOW. not me.
Well, if it's to not be a political thing, then I don't need to convince you. I'm fine with the current status quo, but I would also be fine if individual states got to decide what they want to do with it. We've discussed this already.
Quote: AZDuffmanOh, but they are and for the reasons stated. The welfare state is mostly about providing a more equal outcome, taking money by force from some people and giving it to others. The bigger government is used to rig the system for equal outcomes.
This is a perfect example of changing definitions to fit whatever you want. The data we have shows the exact opposite of what you claim. The more that places like China, Russia, and Europe move away from communism, the more their middle class (more equal outcomes) grows.
Quote: AZDuffmanConservatives have always been for protecting the border. Liberals are now de facto for open borders. In the 2020 primaries, just watch and you will see any candidate not calling for open borders will have no chance. They will all be calling for amnesty and most for getting rid of ICE.
The more rigid our borders, the more that birth place is the deciding factor in opportunities (completely unequal). That may be a conservative value based on some definitions. But it is once again the exact opposite of the definition you provided. Trump's Border Wall is North America's version of India's Caste system. I commend you for your talent in being able to bend these political definitions and values in whatever way necessary to make absolutely sure that you know you're on the right side and the other side is wrong. It's very American of you.
