The Political Discussion Thread

[Gatefan1976]

You have a funny way of showing it at times.

You have to be cruel to be kind.

[SoulReaver]

the DNC's "system" was deliberately rigged by the DNC by ordering that their supersaturates vote for Clinton.

unlike the national system which was rigged by the ruskies

twinkle twinkle little tsar, Putin put you where you are

[mad_gater]

The difference is the "system" that put Trump in the White House was the same for both candidates, while the DNC's "system" was deliberately rigged by the DNC by ordering that their supersaturates superdelegates vote for Clinton.

supersaturates is probably a more accurate term in this case

[Falcon Horus]

I thought the training wheels had fallen off and gotten lost.

They might have wheeled off the moment they realized who they would be working for.

What would have happened had Trump lost the election, and there was a huge swing against the Republicans. I just want to entertain an alternate scenario?

Half of the scenario could be a reality in November 2018.

[Annoyed]

What would have happened had Trump lost the election, and there was a huge swing against the Republicans. I just want to entertain an alternate scenario?

Just how would that have played out?

We saw that play out, in 2008. The Dems took the White House and both houses of Congress; the mood of the country was decidedly against the Republicans. That did not go well.

Just looking at health care, the focus of the prior administration, I can say without reservation that it was a complete failure. After 8 years, my own health care costs nearly doubled after LSoScare was pushed through, my PCP was driven from practice, and I have a far inferior plan to what I had in 2008.

[SGalisa]

You missed his point.
It's not about "breeding", it's about the role of women and them being of no use besides breeding.
This is the role evangelicals throw women into, and as a non-breeder, you are a failure of a woman.
I -DON'T- agree with that, but that is the view of your leaders.
Do you understand that -I- am defending YOU?

Yes, I understand... I did LOL at your last sentence, too...
As for the "breeding" stuff, it goes back to a command given to Adam and Eve "be fruitful and multiply"... and the apostle Paul wrote in his speeches and letters that it is expected of women to continue in that role... but the teachers of ancient times didn't anticipate a world where there isn't enough food to feed the whole world and keep feeding it and house everyone because some families would be living in skyscraper buildings, because they either can't afford rural housing, or the land is sealed off because the area is not safe to build on swamp-lands, or it belongs to some sanctuary park for wildlife only (not for humans), or if off-limits some other reason.

I saw the handwriting on the wall about earth's "population explosions" back in the 1960's and 1970's. I didn't need a Church to tell me that our planet was shrinking from living space and not having enough food supplies, etc., or be lectured about crops dying for whatever the cause, and thus shortening our food supplies. That's common sense. But not everyone follows "common sense" (meaning, families that have 5 plus kids and continue expanding). Many of our local (food) pasture-lands got sold off to business and residential real estates, because the farmers didn't invest in better irrigation systems and bug infestation controls. So, the housing industry bloomed and expanded. Downfalls happened when too many families over extended their buying abilities and went into massive foreclosures.

Now, is that a world to bring more children into when the bottom falls out, or keeps falling out and apart...? With my family, it happened more than 5 times (job layoffs, thus, no money to spare... and no retirement finances available -- so we will work til we literally drop dead, or from some other horrible reason). So, who is being wise and who is being foolish? Bringing a child into an environment that is NOT going to adequately feed everyone in the family is folly, IMO.

I am glad you were not Eve, or even Lillith, the human race would not exist.

Jeeze, thought you'd be happy (and grateful) that I didn't bring lots of *mini-mee's* into this world.

Christians have no frigging clue where policy starts and belief ends.

Really?
Oh, seriously tho, you posted to the wrong person to say that to. Or did you forget that I work with gov't (Federal AND State) regulations/laws? And I work with a bunch of other (very dedicated) Christians who also keep the paperwork flowing to those who "need" to know. Also, we *all* try to abide by a code of excellence and quality (NOT quantity) in our work.

So, just for giggles, if anyone is curious how the policy-making process works, just take a look at California's lengthy history of SB-54. "Senate Bill-54 Law enforcement: sharing data.(2017-2018) (link is here)"

This isn't one of the laws I have to track, but it's well worth the read in scrolling down its History list. Original date of inception was 12/05/2016.
On 10/05/2017, SB-54 was "Approved by the Governor" and filed into Law (the Statutes).
10/05/2017, Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 495, Statutes of 2017.
"Other links on the same bill SB-54 are here." Look for the actual TEXT... deals with immigration and arrests, etc. Oh, and blame the California legislative writers for the giant font sizes... Guess they wanted folks to read it in giant letters, so that those reading it couldn't say their eyesight was bad/poor.

Christians have no frigging clue where policy starts and belief ends.

Again... *sigh* (here's more details than you need/want to know)

I had to work with a regulatory "expert" who acts like he's morally good, but not a "Churchy" type of (born-again) Christian. He was supposed to be researching the various rules being passed for me to format into print for other people to read. Turns out after 3 years of that person NOT doing their job to full efficiency, I had to HUNT the info down myself in order for the (environmental) rules we needed to view to be current. And what I hunt down, this expert person didn't even bother looking for any more, and from what I am guessing -- he's an agnostic. What started out as that person supposed to be passing work on to me, ended up with me researching and passing the work on to everyone else who needs it. And most of the others get paid more than me (because they are in teaching positions).

Also, we underlings don't touch the laws.. We read them to be compliant with what is there and pass that info on to others who need it and understand it. If something appears to have any errors in it, me or one of my coworkers will contact the gov't agency responsible, and inquire to verify if they have given us the correct info. If not (because we pointed out some sort of error in their regs), usually they will say that the regulation will be amended sometime in the future, and thus, we pass that info on to everyone else who is required to be in compliance of that ruling.

Spoiler brackets below for space...

Spoiler:

Here's a basic overview / example of something else I had to work with ---- California LAWs are challenging to dig into to start with, and then having to sift thru some 80 items in less than 2 days just to find about 16 required rules. Yes, I *found* them all. I even found the ones that weren't listed in the shortcut method the regulatory person was using as a guideline. I had to dig the info out myself. Have been doing so for more than 5 years since then, and doing it with an amazing tracking system that sometimes leaves me cross-eyed from staring at the info too long while sorting into some easy-to-find table set-up. Once the table is set-up (I had to make a template to make the process easier to track and update), then anyone can view it and should have NO problem locating what rules changed what and when.

BTW, the Christians ~ I work with ~ who also "know" the regulatory process and regulations well enough that they could teach a class on compliance. I could do that too, but I like sitting at a computer all day doing boring work, instead... Sometimes I actually *learn* things too (about environmental treatment and processing), when I'm not doing mindless other (formatting for presentations) work.

So, there it is... I have learned a lot about the nitty-gritty details that requires how to maintain a clean and *healthy* environment for many of the various industries and businesses that involve environmentally related everything things. Maybe that's why I got more passionate when I see our world messing up the environment -- just because they don't care as much as some of the rest of us...

Christians in the gov't do NOT know their limits. They can't make that distinction between church and state, or bible law and constitutional law.

That depends on what category and agency they are working within. Medical issues is a moral area that covers a lot of territory and touches people who believe at what points life is precious or to be discarded.

Environmental issues is an easy area to follow exactly as told. There ARE limits within this area that should not be abused and ignored, because of serious consequences with equipment failure and other detailed things that can make huge messes of an entire industry or business.
You do as advised. Call the agency who wrote the rules if there are any questions in whatever was written that doesn't make sense or conflicts with other info. Otherwise, pay the penalty for not paying attention to the rules and ways the gov't mandates, especially if something goes wrong or you get caught doing a *no-no*. It's not that difficult to do, really ~ especially if you have an internal, moral compass to follow the advice given. There's also usually a "grace" period provided to work out the kinks (errors) within the new rules being provided.

I can't explain this any clearer than that. Sorry.

[Annoyed]

Yes, I understand... I did LOL at your last sentence, too...
As for the "breeding" stuff, it goes back to a command given to Adam and Eve "be fruitful and multiply"... and the apostle Paul wrote in his speeches and letters that it is expected of women to continue in that role... but the teachers of ancient times didn't anticipate a world where there isn't enough food to feed the whole world and keep feeding it and house everyone because some families would be living in skyscraper buildings, because they either can't afford rural housing, or the land is sealed off because the area is not safe to build on swamp-lands, or it belongs to some sanctuary park for wildlife only (not for humans), or if off-limits some other reason.

I saw the handwriting on the wall about earth's "population explosions" back in the 1960's and 1970's. I didn't need a Church to tell me that our planet was shrinking from living space and not having enough food supplies, etc., or be lectured about crops dying for whatever the cause, and thus shortening our food supplies. That's common sense. But not everyone follows "common sense" (meaning, families that have 5 plus kids and continue expanding). Many of our local (food) pasture-lands got sold off to business and residential real estates, because the farmers didn't invest in better irrigation systems and bug infestation controls. So, the housing industry bloomed and expanded. Downfalls happened when too many families over extended their buying abilities and went into massive foreclosures.

Now, is that a world to bring more children into when the bottom falls out, or keeps falling out and apart...? With my family, it happened more than 5 times (job layoffs, thus, no money to spare... and no retirement finances available -- so we will work til we literally drop dead, or from some other horrible reason). So, who is being wise and who is being foolish? Bringing a child into an environment that is NOT going to adequately feed everyone in the family is folly, IMO.

I think a big part of it is that many societies try to live where the earth itself makes it impractical to do so, and could very well thrive if they weren't located where they were.

A first world example would be New Orleans. You have a city below sea level that happens to be located in hurricane alley. How smart is that? You're gonna get flooded out, the only question is when and how often. Mother nature can also erect roadblocks in other areas of life; food production or availability, water supplies, climate for example.

As far as the religious aspects, while its certainly unlikely that the teachers of the time could predict circumstances today, shouldn't God have been able to, and maybe give a different message to Adam & Eve?

I'm not saying God couldn't know, I would assume any "God" to be omnipotent. But just maybe we're not really anywhere near the breaking point, we just haven't figured out how to do it yet?

[aretood2]

Christians in the gov't do NOT know their limits. They can't make that distinction between church and state, or bible law and constitutional law.

So, how many Muslims are in a governmental position?
Better yet, what's the percentage of Muslim faith in the US? -- Without looking it up -- take a guess. **

Did you notice that you made a contradictory argument here? In other words, if I follow your argument to its logical conclusion, no Muslims know their limits either, and thus it is perfectly fin to ban them from government...I mean you basically said as much about Christians without any distinctions. So why wouldn't it be true for Muslims?

[Gatefan1976]

Yes, I understand... I did LOL at your last sentence, too...
As for the "breeding" stuff, it goes back to a command given to Adam and Eve "be fruitful and multiply"... and the apostle Paul wrote in his speeches and letters that it is expected of women to continue in that role... but the teachers of ancient times didn't anticipate a world where there isn't enough food to feed the whole world and keep feeding it and house everyone because some families would be living in skyscraper buildings, because they either can't afford rural housing, or the land is sealed off because the area is not safe to build on swamp-lands, or it belongs to some sanctuary park for wildlife only (not for humans), or if off-limits some other reason.

This is an excuse to ignore the bible.
It -also- happens to be practical.
Can you see my issue here?
Religious texts, for all their -good stuff- is FULL of bad, or just plain ignorant stuff that should be just cast aside.
You just said, and highlighted it, that they could not know, or envisage our world.
Why cling to the strictures, structures and frankly, ignorance of them?
Morally, religion is still relevant, the struggles of humanity and how we deal with them, no argument, but to embrace the ignorant viewpoint of people who lived in........ "simpler times" is simply that, Ignorant. Worse, it is -wilfully- ignorant. because we know better.

Why would I, or anyone want stuff -run- on it?

I saw the handwriting on the wall about earth's "population explosions" back in the 1960's and 1970's. I didn't need a Church to tell me that our planet was shrinking from living space and not having enough food supplies, etc., or be lectured about crops dying for whatever the cause, and thus shortening our food supplies. That's common sense.

No, you did not need a church, but the population explosions etc did not cause "dwindling food supplies", it was the sheer amount of waste of food in the first world. Even -now- we can house and feed everyone on the planet, no problem.
Instead of -church-, the west embraced commercialism as it's new god, not common sense.

But not everyone follows "common sense" (meaning, families that have 5 plus kids and continue expanding).

Common sense would tell you the urge to have sex is a human evolutionary trait, and stupid rules about abstinence except for procreation is doomed to fail and produce the exact type of situation you are annoyed about.

Many of our local (food) pasture-lands got sold off to business and residential real estates, because the farmers didn't invest in better irrigation systems and bug infestation controls. So, the housing industry bloomed and expanded. Downfalls happened when too many families over extended their buying abilities and went into massive foreclosures.

Nope.

Now, is that a world to bring more children into when the bottom falls out, or keeps falling out and apart...? With my family, it happened more than 5 times (job layoffs, thus, no money to spare... and no retirement finances available -- so we will work til we literally drop dead, or from some other horrible reason). So, who is being wise and who is being foolish? Bringing a child into an environment that is NOT going to adequately feed everyone in the family is folly, IMO.

Then -why- on gods green earth do you support the religious and political positions you do?
Recessions on the level you are talking are driven by corporate or state mismanagement, -not- the farmer or the homeowner who was hustled into taking on more debt than they can sustain, and the person who -does- get pregnant get's vilified for making the hard choice to end the pregnancy -often for the exact same reasons you sited!!-
The above from you is a -logical- position, it weighs up the pro's and cons. I just disagree with what assumptions you are basing your start point on.

Jeeze, thought you'd be happy (and grateful) that I didn't bring lots of *mini-mee's* into this world.

Why do you think that?
My kids are quite different from either me, or Mrs GF, but sure, I get the olive branch, and it is accepted and appreciated

Really?
Oh, seriously tho, you posted to the wrong person to say that to. Or did you forget that I work with gov't (Federal AND State) regulations/laws? And I work with a bunch of other (very dedicated) Christians who also keep the paperwork flowing to those who "need" to know. Also, we *all* try to abide by a code of excellence and quality (NOT quantity) in our work.

So, just for giggles, if anyone is curious how the policy-making process works, just take a look at California's lengthy history of SB-54. "Senate Bill-54 Law enforcement: sharing data.(2017-2018) (link is here)"

This isn't one of the laws I have to track, but it's well worth the read in scrolling down its History list. Original date of inception was 12/05/2016.
On 10/05/2017, SB-54 was "Approved by the Governor" and filed into Law (the Statutes).
10/05/2017, Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 495, Statutes of 2017.
"Other links on the same bill SB-54 are here." Look for the actual TEXT... deals with immigration and arrests, etc. Oh, and blame the California legislative writers for the giant font sizes... Guess they wanted folks to read it in giant letters, so that those reading it couldn't say their eyesight was bad/poor.




Again... *sigh* (here's more details than you need/want to know)

I had to work with a regulatory "expert" who acts like he's morally good, but not a "Churchy" type of (born-again) Christian. He was supposed to be researching the various rules being passed for me to format into print for other people to read. Turns out after 3 years of that person NOT doing their job to full efficiency, I had to HUNT the info down myself in order for the (environmental) rules we needed to view to be current. And what I hunt down, this expert person didn't even bother looking for any more, and from what I am guessing -- he's an agnostic. What started out as that person supposed to be passing work on to me, ended up with me researching and passing the work on to everyone else who needs it. And most of the others get paid more than me (because they are in teaching positions).

I have ONE question.
Do you write the law?

Also, we underlings don't touch the laws.. We read them to be compliant with what is there and pass that info on to others who need it and understand it. If something appears to have any errors in it, me or one of my coworkers will contact the gov't agency responsible, and inquire to verify if they have given us the correct info. If not (because we pointed out some sort of error in their regs), usually they will say that the regulation will be amended sometime in the future, and thus, we pass that info on to everyone else who is required to be in compliance of that ruling.

That's right, you DON'T write the law, any law.
You are a paper pusher, and for joe/jane average, I have no argument with them. My -issue- is with those who DO write the laws, and their seeming ignorance on what law should be based on. The -reason- I posed the Tapper video was to show that -people in power- have no clue what the law is based on, or what it is supposed to be based on. You had a 3 term public official who was -clueless- that you don't have to swear on the bible and stating Muslims cannot be public officials "because they can't swear on the bible" and -also- claiming that US law is based on messianic law. It's NOT, it's based on English common law. YES, English common law does parallel some aspects of Messianic law, but it also parallels some aspects of Heathen Germanic law, BOTH in turn draw them other, older, cultures and religions (who in turn draw them from older ones)

I cut the rest because frankly, it's repetitive. You do your job regardless of your beliefs, and that's good, I do the same thing, but what you have made quite clear is, you don't make laws, so my, and I daresay FH's "ire" is not directed towards -you personally-, it's directed squarely at the people who are in the position to make the laws you dutifully work as a public servant for. You are defending yourself, GOOD, I respect that, but you are NOT the target, nor can you defend those who are.

[Gatefan1976]

Did you notice that you made a contradictory argument here? In other words, if I follow your argument to its logical conclusion, no Muslims know their limits either, and thus it is perfectly fin to ban them from government...I mean you basically said as much about Christians without any distinctions. So why wouldn't it be true for Muslims?

It's not so much contradictory as -tailored- to the questioner.
Having said that, you are right, so long as the only Muslims you are referring to are able to enact legislation as FH -did- put that condition into her answer.

[Coco Pops]

It's not so much contradictory as -tailored- to the questioner.
Having said that, you are right, so long as the only Muslims you are referring to are able to enact legislation as FH -did- put that condition into her answer.

And as soon as I read your post a banner ad was on this website for "arab dating" Keep refreshing the page and you might see it.

Google analytics is pretty smart

[thekillman]

Did you notice that you made a contradictory argument here? In other words, if I follow your argument to its logical conclusion, no Muslims know their limits either, and thus it is perfectly fin to ban them from government...I mean you basically said as much about Christians without any distinctions. So why wouldn't it be true for Muslims?

Technically, you made a false equivalence. Christians may not know their limits in government, but that doesn't mean muslims don't know their limits in government.

I'm not saying either is true, but FH didn't argue that it can be extended to all religion. Nor can you automatically extend it to all religion.

[Falcon Horus]

That depends on what category and agency they are working within. Medical issues is a moral area that covers a lot of territory and touches people who believe at what points life is precious or to be discarded.

No, it does not depend on what category or agency. Religion has no place in state affairs, or the making of laws.

You are always on about shariah law, well then... why are you okay with Christians or whatever to inject their religious objections into laws of state?

I think a big part of it is that many societies try to live where the earth itself makes it impractical to do so, and could very well thrive if they weren't located where they were.

But helping to improve those conditions.... no, no way... let's not...

A first world example would be New Orleans. You have a city below sea level that happens to be located in hurricane alley.

The whole country of The Netherlands is below sealevel -- your point?

[Annoyed]

No, it does not depend on what category or agency. Religion has no place in state affairs, or the making of laws.

You are always on about shariah law, well then... why are you okay with Christians or whatever to inject their religious objections into laws of state?



But helping to improve those conditions.... no, no way... let's not...



The whole country of The Netherlands is below sealevel -- your point?

How would you improve conditions in New Orleans, for example? You have a magic wand that that can raise the area up above sea level?

Are the Netherlands in hurricane alley, or in an area in where other weather events can be expected to flood the area periodically?

Seems like a stupid place to live. Rather than rebuild New Orleans next time it floods (and there WILL be a next time) maybe it would be smart to move the hell out?

[thekillman]

You are always on about shariah law, well then... why are you okay with Christians or whatever to inject their religious objections into laws of state?

I'm pretty sure that he/she said she's fine with a christian theocracy like 3 posts ago

Are the Netherlands in hurricane alley, or in an area in where other weather events can be expected to flood the area periodically?

No and yes.

The whole country of The Netherlands is below sealevel -- your point?

About a third is.