The Political Discussion Thread

[Falcon Horus]

Wow, that was quite the read... now to remember why I quoted these following posts... and probably be cutting it up in different posts cause my workday is almost over.

Gatefan1976 and FH like to mock or silence me too... so, *join the club*... FH likes to silence me especially when I don't view things the way she seems to or thinks I seem to. Case in point, recent Meghan Markle video and comments. If FH hasn't seen it yet, or read my full post(s), I doubt if she will.

Silence you, really?!

I do not do such thing -- I fact check and then throw the ball back in your court. What you do with the ball is entirely up to you.

I did silence you once (for my own sanity) -- in a literal but mostly virtually way -- I put you my ignore-list.

And I don't care what Meghan thinks or does, or whom she's friends with or not. The woman's engaged to Prince Harry, and beyond that I don't even know who she is. I know she's an actress but I doubt she'll do much acting once she's married into the royal British family.

That first post you wrote, in reply to the British government asking Harry not to invite Obama to his wedding because it could offend Trump, where you implied that the reason they're friends with Obama is because Meghan is African-American -- I pretty much stopped reading cause your racism was shining through.

As I just noted to Ian-S, that *silencing* happens to me with FH's comments against me. Even when I'm wrong and correct it -- the silent treatment continues (similar to the silent treatment Will Robinson got at times in "Lost in Space"). Oh well, whatever... I don't expect an apology or anything positive in response, because that's what most "leftists" (and "socialists") do.

I'm always amused when it's "leftist" or "socialists".

Yes, I'm a member (unless I forget to pay for my membership -- crap, I still need to pay for it) of a political party which happens to have socialism in their name, but I'm neither a leftist or a socialist. I'm center-left, leaning more left than center but still nowhere near as left as a true "leftist".

"Centre-left politics or center-left politics (American English), also referred to as moderate-left politics, is an adherence to views leaning to the left-wing, but closer to the centre on the left–right political spectrum than other left-wing variants. Centre-leftists believe in working within the established systems to improve social justice. The centre-left promotes a degree of social equality that it believes is achievable through promoting equal opportunity. The centre-left has promoted luck egalitarianism, which emphasizes the achievement of equality requires personal responsibility in areas in control by the individual person through their abilities and talents, as well as social responsibility in areas outside control by the individual person in their abilities or talents.

The centre-left opposes a wide gap between the rich and the poor and supports moderate measures to reduce the economic gap, such as a progressive income tax, laws prohibiting child labour, minimum wage laws, laws regulating working conditions, limits on working hours and laws to ensure the workers' right to organize. The centre-left typically claims that complete equality of outcome is not possible, but instead that equal opportunity improves a degree of equality of outcome in society.

In Europe, the centre-left includes social democrats, social liberals, progressives and also some democratic socialists, greens and the Christian left. Some social liberals are described as centre-left, but many social liberals are in the centre of the political spectrum as well."

They move on and don't even acknowledge that they went back and re-reviewed what was written. I find myself re-reviewing some postings several times before I get back on the forums, because I've rushed to fast in the past that I either misread something or lost something in the translation and skimming over process.

Err... do you mean the endless factchecking, researching, listings and whatever else I do when I post here?

In this particular situation, for example (regarding Meghan Markle, etc.), it's FH's loss, not mine.

Actually, I do not consider it a loss, just pointless information.

Fortunately, she is now in a position where her voice can be heard among many around the entire world who have the ability to also help make a positive, HOPEFUL difference in helping to heal those who are experiencing similar dilemmas and choices about their own self (and self-worth, etc) and existence along with the rest of humanity.

Honey, the woman is marrying into the British royal family.
She'll have to adhere to certain rules and can't just post whatever she likes anymore. On that notion, she's already deleted her twitter and instagram account, and closed down her blog.

Here's a hint of what's ahead for her: How will life change for Meghan Markle when she marries Prince Harry

Not acknowledging and so-called "moving on" -- even after I explained that FH's POV may be in error (btw via preconceived thinking), is nearly the same (in my POV) as giving someone "the silent treatment"... I've noticed this wasn't the first time such moments have occurred and most likely won't be the last, either.

For your information: when I move on from a discussion, it means I have nothing more to add or I do not think we'll come to a mutual agreement or find common ground. The cows are not going to come home any time soon so why bother waiting.

I actually don't mind FH mentioning me (in whatever entertains her fancy visions)...

Wait, I have a fancy vision?

And Trump tweeting about how big his nuclear button is. Don't forget that.
Is this an adult size toddler in the Whitehouse, and the WH has become an Adult Day Care facility?
Seriously people voted for this clown child????

My actual respons to that tweet:


***
More to come later -- packing it up here, going home.

[SoulReaver]

Did i miss something? Where did Judge Moore get convicted in a court of law? When did he get legally charged? Calling him a padeo cause of unproven allegations is like me calling you a wife beater cause you wear a tank top tee shirt.. Dumb.

bring back presumption of innocence when it's convenient?
would that apply to Bill Cosby Kevin Spacey Harvey Weinstein & Al Franken too?

Strange, me and my borther both think Obama did just fine at erasing the dignity of the office. Trump's just not doing a good job of bring it back.

yeah me too me think no pussy-grabbing for Obama = no dignity

[Annoyed]

Not an impossible hurdle. You wouldn't let a criminal run because you'd appear biased, or a terrorist, or let someone do their drug trade. People read the news with bias, but that doesn't mean we should avoid reading news. Politicians are inherently biased, but we let them do their job.

Again, no one will answer this question. Wonder why?

How would you like it if the censors, whatever platform it is, were inherently biased to the right, rather than the left? Would you still approve of that censorship if the people you agree with were the ones being censored?

[thekillman]

Again, no one will answer this question. Wonder why?

I wouldn't want an exclusively leaning censoring. I would like means to ensure trolls and spambots are kept out, terrorists aren't freely recruiting and criminals aren't offered a platform.

If that means that occasionally (again, within reason) something gets removed when it shouldn't have, regardless of left or right leaning, then it's fine. Can't have a perfect system anyway, since Facebook and Google run on algorithms designed with bias. After all, that's what personalized content is. And it's often a good thing. I mean, if you aren't interested in something, why not filter that out? I couldn't care less about the financial market in Iran or India, yet if you had an unbiased news feed you'd have to dig through miles of news just to find the interesting stuff (for instance, local news). If people are outraged in Australia because of some slow movie, i don't care. Yet if we weren't allowed to bias, you couldn't filter that. According to you, we couldn't be allowed to filter out crap pepe memes from the alt-right, even though most of that is trolling, entire worlds constructed of straw and flame-baiting. I've yet to meet one worth talking to. Should people be forced to sit down with a bunch of looney extremists under the guise of "no bias"? Should i have to listen to UFO crackpots because else i'd be biased?

[Annoyed]

I wouldn't want an exclusively leaning censoring. I would like means to ensure trolls and spambots are kept out, terrorists aren't freely recruiting and criminals aren't offered a platform.

If that means that occasionally (again, within reason) something gets removed when it shouldn't have, regardless of left or right leaning, then it's fine. Can't have a perfect system anyway, since Facebook and Google run on algorithms designed with bias. After all, that's what personalized content is. And it's often a good thing. I mean, if you aren't interested in something, why not filter that out? I couldn't care less about the financial market in Iran or India, yet if you had an unbiased news feed you'd have to dig through miles of news just to find the interesting stuff (for instance, local news). If people are outraged in Australia because of some slow movie, i don't care. Yet if we weren't allowed to bias, you couldn't filter that. According to you, we couldn't be allowed to filter out crap pepe memes from the alt-right, even though most of that is trolling, entire worlds constructed of straw and flame-baiting. I've yet to meet one worth talking to. Should people be forced to sit down with a bunch of looney extremists under the guise of "no bias"? Should i have to listen to UFO crackpots because else i'd be biased?

You can filter yourself; if you don't want to read something, don't read it.

You say you wouldn't want "an exclusively leaning censoring". Neither do I.
But the censors we are being asked to accept ARE pretty much exclusively left leaning. Does my position make a little more sense now?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating right-leaning censors. My position is I don't want ANYONE censoring, because you can't avoid bias.

[BlowitUpistus]

I've heard of it, but I simply don't accept it as bullying.
You can't hit someone over the internet, and that's the end of it as far as I'm concerned.

Sorry Annoyed, but as someone who's nephew HAS been bullied online, i find it MORE atrocious than regular bullying. CAUSE at least regular bullies you can get in the face of and punch BACK@! Cyber bullies are often Anonymous..

The same is true in reverse. Want to fire an employe? read his twitter...

Which is why i refuse to use it! I've known at least a dozen dunces fired for what they said/posted on twitter/facebook or youtube..

Don't get me wrong though. I really don't mind Europe. It's just when Europe tries to pretend that it has the moral high ground that it gets me. Europeans can't just pretend the majority of the second half of the second millennium never happened when it wags its finger at the US for it's 150 years of nonsense.

I agree. Europe for centuries had colonies in damn near 1/3rd the world.. So they have imo NO leg to stand on when calling out the US..

Insults mean nothing to me, that's the point of my argument. Your resorting to them says a lot about you, however. As does resorting to semantics to refute my argument.

Maybe they mean nothing to you, but to many kids these days, they mean a lot..

Well dinner calls. Will get back to the rest of page 46 later (from post #26918 on)

[aretood2]

I wouldn't be so isolationist IF our relations with other nations and the U.N. were crafted for OUR benefit, rather than more beneficial to the other party.

Nafta (and similar *aftas) generally result in our jobs being outsourced.
The TPP, which we wisely pulled out of was more of the same.
The various climate deals wish to levy taxes and increase costs for US consumers far more than energy users in other countries. Some nations are given a pass in some of those.
And I don't even want to think about the UN.

In short, our treaties and relations with other nations usually end up being detrimental to the interests of most US citizens. Maybe we need to have someone with some backbone negotiating deals. We should be making deals which look out for our interests, first, last and always or we shouldn't make them.

Our economy has greatly benefited from a lot of those things. The problem is that you equate 20th century manufacturing jobs with the economy. And you never ever, not once, mentioned anything approximating an answer when asked about automation. It's eitehr outsourcing or automation.
The reason why outsourcing has been chosen by those big bad companies is because it is still cheaper than automation. But Automation will only increase prices and hire labor that is more skilled than those who were fired.

You already hate funding education, so you can't really help those people retrain so that they can compete for those newer less numerous jobs or move into other industries. And that second one is the biggest issue. Unwillingness and/or inability to retrain in general. You can't fault the free market for that, and like it or not free trade is an aspect of the free market. This is why it's Democrats who have always promoted protectionist policy, it's more closely aligned to socialism. The more educated...sorry,
"Establishment" republicans have always favored free trade for the very same reasons they favor an open and free market.

[Annoyed]

Our economy has greatly benefited from a lot of those things. The problem is that you equate 20th century manufacturing jobs with the economy. And you never ever, not once, mentioned anything approximating an answer when asked about automation. It's eitehr outsourcing or automation.
The reason why outsourcing has been chosen by those big bad companies is because it is still cheaper than automation. But Automation will only increase prices and hire labor that is more skilled than those who were fired.

You already hate funding education, so you can't really help those people retrain so that they can compete for those newer less numerous jobs or move into other industries. And that second one is the biggest issue. Unwillingness and/or inability to retrain in general. You can't fault the free market for that, and like it or not free trade is an aspect of the free market. This is why it's Democrats who have always promoted protectionist policy, it's more closely aligned to socialism. The more educated...sorry,
"Establishment" republicans have always favored free trade for the very same reasons they favor an open and free market.

That's exactly it. Over the past several decades, plenty of hardworking folks who simply don't have the ability to retrain have been left out of the labor market. Different people have different skills, strong and weak areas and such. I think only 30% or so of the population has a 4 year degree. Not everyone is cut out for college. What are those people supposed to do?

The society should be able to provide employment for its people. Free trade goes against that principle.

And you may have noticed, I'm not an "Establishment" Republican.

[Coco Pops]

Can I ask a really, really simple question that even a toddler could answer?




Why should every trade deal or agreement be for the benefit of the USA?

Why should everything benefit the USA?

[aretood2]

That's exactly it. Over the past several decades, plenty of hardworking folks who simply don't have the ability to retrain have been left out of the labor market. Different people have different skills, strong and weak areas and such. I think only 30% or so of the population has a 4 year degree. Not everyone is cut out for college. What are those people supposed to do?

The society should be able to provide employment for its people. Free trade goes against that principle.

And you may have noticed, I'm not an "Establishment" Republican.

An easier solution would be to make it easier to retrain...I mean eventually, outsourcing or not, all of those jobs are going to disappear. What then?

[Annoyed]

An easier solution would be to make it easier to retrain...I mean eventually, outsourcing or not, all of those jobs are going to disappear. What then?

I'm not talking about people whose circumstances make it difficult to train, which might be made easier. I'm talking about those who cannot be retrained; they just don't have the mental chops for it. There are an awful lot of people who fit that category in this country. as I said, college is not for everyone. Many folks can't pass it.
Unless you want to remove a significant portion of the population so that only those who can be retrained remain, it might not be a good idea to let that happen.

[SGalisa]

So Oprah for 2020...... This should be fun if she actually runs

She's seriously thinking about it, and the most recent articles about her saying so, are not the only ones. She's mentioned it several times before. So, this time, she might be truly serious.

...Even more than 2016, 2020 is the Democrats' to win or to lose. If they run Oprah, they're doing a good bit to lose. She is almost universally ridiculed by the male half of the population. She's popular with women, but is that enough to carry an election?

She actually has more popularity with more than just women. There are plenty of guys out there, too, who admire her.

"kid rock for president" - gossip (well "entertainment") section
"The Rock for president" - gossip section
"Oprah for president" - front page.

o.k.

That's probably what the elections might look like, too, especially with the current MSM promoting it all.

Altho, having "The Rock" make a go for it might put Oprah in a tough competition. She does have more international business dealings on her resume, tho, than perhaps Dwayne 'The Rock' Johnson. Both have strengths in audience appeal. Not sure about having peace deals and global prosperity going on world-wide, tho.

There's a lot more to signing laws into action and enforcing them. President is over-seeing ALL agencies... not just the entertainment industries and those agencies claiming to push for *causes* (cure cancer, save the "green" earth, etc).

Silence you, really?!

I do not do such thing -- I fact check and then throw the ball back in your court. What you do with the ball is entirely up to you.

I know... I'm just being a proverbial "thorn"...
I wrote what I wrote, because that's the way I often *feel* ... depends on what is being said and how it is being presented. I do have a problem with lacking in witty speaking, because seems it's never been there to begin with.

It would be nice, tho, if the leaders of this world choose to go forth and (mandatory) have these *wonderful* "sensitivity training" sessions on DNA sensitivity training (which is generically termed as "racism"), that they include how to better communicate with all personality types. Can't judge a book by its cover, so stop judging people by their skin color/type, too. It's what resides within the (emotional / spiritual) *heart* that counts and influences the mind to act upon various deeds.

Err... do you mean the endless factchecking, researching, listings and whatever else I do when I post here?

No, I meant your actual posts / replies ~ on-going conversations. Not the zillion details in your endless "factchecking, researching, listings" research. Perhaps a better term is the *tone* that the receiver seems to think is being set by the sender of the conversation. When I read one GF's more recent replies to me, I felt it was set (intended to be) in a very scolding sort of tone. When I re-read it several times later, I got a different impression, which was a bit softer and possibly in an encouraging tone, than scolding one. IDK which tonality was being presented, so I erred on the side of caution and tried not to see it as a "father scolding a child" or in his case, an adult scolding an elder... (I'm apparently older than him??). It still doesn't bode well in tone, using those two scenarios as examples.

And I don't care what Meghan thinks or does, or whom she's friends with or not. The woman's engaged to Prince Harry, and beyond that I don't even know who she is. I know she's an actress but I doubt she'll do much acting once she's married into the royal British family.

That first post you wrote, in reply to the British government asking Harry not to invite Obama to his wedding because it could offend Trump, where you implied that the reason they're friends with Obama is because Meghan is African-American -- I pretty much stopped reading cause your racism was shining through.

My goodness...! I tried explaining and re-explained on top of that - that it was Meghan Markle who said she is "black and white"
(she also has an interest in going to Africa to help work with the people there).
So, how is that racist? She said it herself. I was just repeating what she said.

If you (FH) failed to finish reading or watching the video, then the ball is in *your* court for a lacking further details. Again, Meghan's video revealed about her half-n-half blended mixture of DNA backgrounds. The proof is in the video pudding, so to speak. I did NOT make the video.

Actually, I do not consider it a loss, just pointless information.

How can it be "pointless" --to ignore what Meghan said on her own video-- when in factual reality (because whether a comment is correct or not, the printed word becomes a fact once it's printed), you (FH) are claiming I'm being racist by repeating what she/and the video both stated as FACT..? When a person is being wrongly *accused* of being something they are not, there are details missing "in the fabric of time" ~ that sort the truth of these matters out. Several times, I just gave those very details to clear myself.. with specific examples, which were treated as if they were never there.

But ... back to the racist accusation ~ I've recently heard/read that "snow" is now racist, because it is white.
So, I guess I shouldn't be surprised at what else people will come up with nowadays to push various divisions between one group of people against another. Sad... for a general world-view perspective.

Wait, I have a fancy vision?

Of course, Yes! You (FH) have an amazing imagination, especially when you don't know all of the details going on in someone else's life (such as mine, for example..). Otherwise, I am having a really difficult time *proving* skin colors are only an issue with me, when I turn into a (red) lobster from severe sunburn, and cannot enjoy the beautiful darker skin my friends have... they make me *jealous* of their awesome genes -- that is NOT being racist!

[BlowitUpistus]

You imply that everyone's voice is worth hearing, even though we've seen repeatedly that some people are at their best when they shut up. Your method legitimizes people with truly despicable motives, like the shooting truthers.

I think what Mr Annoyed is getting at is, WHO then determines who's voice is worth listening to, and who's voice should be ignored?? So far with Facebook and Youtube, it seems the owners/mods/workers, are doing a LOT of silencing of conservative voices, and a lot of 'giving a mike' to liberal ones..

She actually gave up fighting it. Even if she were to get her job back...how could she go back to the school after everything that was made public?

As my dad would say, that is royally Fubar!

No. Free speech is that you can't be arrested for what you say. Free speech still means that people can ask you to be silent or leave, free speech still means you can be banned from fora.

But how is speech free still, if only one side seems to continually get silenced..

What would society be like if there were no rich or poor and everyone had the same wealth?

The federation??!

Hence why it's important that if you are going to say something stupid about your company, not to do it so you can be recognized. Every job-seeking person knows (or should know by now) that nothing ever goes away on the internet, and future employers will google you (and that can or will ruin your chances).

OR if you really loath them that much, just quit..

No moral high ground (cutting out a lot of stuff here)

IMO most countries have something dirty in their history that makes them have no real moral high ground..

However, might I add that we (Belgium that is) have acknowledged our black pages in history, our colonial past in the Congo. We made plenty mistakes, but we are taking responsibility for it.

Good for you guys!

Except that the physical injuries (bar any scars) will disappear after a few days or weeks, but the internet.... it remembers for a very long time and it can seriously ruin someone's reputation or harm their chances at work for example.

Well, that can depend on what those injuries are.. BUT you make a valid point.. There are those out there, who had pics posted WITHOUT their knowledge, cause the boyfriend their kin had (or girl friend) that they dumped posted it somewhere to get revenge... THAT to ME classes as internet bullying..

Since when are death threats free speech?
Or deliberatily sending strobe-images to people who are prone to getting seizures?

Legally death threats are NOT free speech (and neither should putting strobes up). Though i remember last year, a # of teachers who willfully made calls for Trump to get hung and the like, some who STILL have their jobs if i remember rightly..

Nope, sorry... even those societies had an elite class. Just look at the archaeological evidence found in graves.

Since humans crawled out of caves, i think societies have ALWAYS had "an elite class" and always will..

So the tax bill isn't really going to help anyone but corporations now won't it?

Both fox and CNN had linked sites one could use to get a guestimate of how much MORE your tax return would be under trump's plan, and depending on which i used, i get an additional 950 to 1180... That certainly helps ME out..

The problem with Reagan's plan is that he got the tax cuts, but he never got the spending cuts that went along with it. (Congress shafted him several times in this manner; immigration for example; Reagan granted amnesty to 6-ish? million illegals in the country in exchange for stepped up enforcement of immigration law to stem the flow of illegals into the country, we never got the enforcement part of that)

So far Trump has also not gotten any spending cuts. Heck i don't think he has even addressed it...

Why must the world bend over so not to offend Trump. Shouldn't Harry be allowed to invite whoever the hell he wants to his wedding?

Yes its their wedding, but since its a royal affair, the heads of state will be there, Trump is one.. So while YES they should take MR trump into consideration,, i just think its a good idea to NOT seat him and Mr Obama near one another..

Yes. I need multiple lives so I can mock ignorance

I could do with a few more extra lives.. Got any to spare?

Trump will just insult everyone while saying he is humble

True, he does seem to let his mouth flap before he's engaged his brain...

Well, up to page 1350 done! More tomorrow.

[Annoyed]

I think what Mr Annoyed is getting at is, WHO then determines who's voice is worth listening to, and who's voice should be ignored?? So far with Facebook and Youtube, it seems the owners/mods/workers, are doing a LOT of silencing of conservative voices, and a lot of 'giving a mike' to liberal ones..

I firmly believe in free speech. My position has always been let everyone say what they want, and let the listener decide the value of what is said.
The left doesn't see it that way; they fear that someone might take a liking to some idea that they don't like. However, you can't claim to value free speech if you don't want to let people you disagree with speak unless you want to come across as a hypocrite.

True, he does seem to let his mouth flap before he's engaged his brain...

I don't know how many times I've said that Trump has the worst case of foot-in-mouth disease I have ever seen.

[Annoyed]

And, speaking of foot-in mouth disease...

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018...otiations.html

I wish he (Trump) would just shut the he** up and do what he was elected to do.

I dunno if this one can or should blow over. Somebody wake up Pence.