Understanding through Discussion

Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 62 (9042 total)
653 online now:
AZPaul3, nwr (2 members, 651 visitors)
Newest Member: maria
Post Volume: Total: 886,048 Year: 3,694/14,102 Month: 314/321 Week: 130/44 Day: 26/20 Hour: 0/1

EvC Forum Side Orders Coffee House The Trump Presidency

Summations Only

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   The Trump Presidency
Inactive Member

Message 113 of 4573 (797194)
01-14-2017 6:14 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by PaulK
01-11-2017 2:05 PM

Re: Fake news
"Pizzagate" is certainly more obviously false than these rumours about Trump. Those, at least, fit in with the way that the Russians are known to have operated, and are not so far out of character for Trump. Surely the "secret tunnels" were a giveaway (at least to anyone who remembers the ridiculous extremes of the Satanic Ritual abuse panic of the 1980s)

The problem is that we do have a huge problem with fake news... the even bigger problem is that a large portion of all media is to some extent fake news. Not just smaller outlets that cater to the left or right, but even mainstream media outlets. Pizzagate has no real credibility. But then neither does this Russian hacking narrative; not that it would matter either way. Even supposing Russian hackers did hack Hillary Clinton's email does not deflect that it was still Clinton harboring that material on unsecure servers. What a sleight of hand! By this logic Wikileaks is guilty of treason, not the people who actually pass the information. Have you ever seen a more obvious diversionary tactic to shift the blame?

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by PaulK, posted 01-11-2017 2:05 PM PaulK has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-14-2017 10:51 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

Inactive Member

Message 143 of 4573 (797461)
01-21-2017 10:13 AM
Reply to: Message 125 by Percy
01-20-2017 7:06 AM

Re: The First Day of the Next Four Years
Start another unnecessary war.

Seems like all new presidents do that one, but he seems to have a particularly itchy trigger finger.

Diminish the strength of NATO, thereby increasing Russian influence.

As much as it seems Putin has his finger wrapped around Trump, Mad Dog Mattis seems to have figured out Putin's game and has been very vocal that he presents the most significant existential threat to the U.S. So hopefully Trump will listen to his own Secretary when it comes to that (provided the information is accurate). But I do agree with Trump that positive relations with Russia is indeed an asset, not a liability, with the proviso that the US isn't getting played by Russia. I would like to see our pseudo-war with Russia to be over and to see true peace between the two... but I realize that is a lofty goal, nevertheless.

Start a trade war with any number of countries, including China.

Trump has really bought in to the antiquated notion that in order to have a strong economy you have to consume national products over exports... which economists have been demonstrating is not really the case for like 2 decades now. Does he maybe have something small right about perhaps too much reliance on Chinese imports? Sure, maybe. But the overwhelming economic relationship between China and the US is not only good for the two nations economies, but also the world's overall economic health and stability. It also has the ancillary benefit of disincentivizing war between the two nations who, without those trade relations, surely would have ideological differences that may bring about military conflict.

Fill court vacancies with conservative judges, i.e., the Supreme Court and many other federal courts with vacancies.

All presidents pander to their party line.... except maybe Reagan's choice of Sandra Day O'Connor.

Deport 2 to 3 million (Trump's number) criminal illegal aliens.
Deport the rest of the illegal aliens.

I have no problem with ICE or CBP doing their job, and I think protecting the border is fine within reason, but rounding people up in the manner he is suggesting will only create a very serious rift between the Mexican-American community that doesn't need to exist. Mexicans are as American as apple goddamn pie, if you ask me.

Build a wall between the US and Mexico.

Literally one of the dumbest plans in human history... a monstrosity so costly on the taxpayers with, literally, no incentive. To think that a wall will keep people out in 2017 is so childishly naive, it's almost too much to believe... as if ladders, tunnels, or small amounts of explosives can't solve that.

Clamp down on Muslim immigration.

I have zero problem with legitimate terrorist watch-lists, but I have a big problem with indiscriminately placing all muslims on a watch-list is a Hitlerian quality that needs to be avoided for rather obvious reasons.

Eliminate gun-free zones around schools and military bases.

Eh... They don't do much except make small enhancements to charges. But I wouldn't necessarily get rid of them.

Eliminate and then not replace the Affordable Care Act.

Great idea. That bill is an atrocious piece of legalese that is severely harming doctors in small practices.

Reduce Medicare coverage.

I think he's been talking of expanding it in lieu of replacing ObamaCare, but I could be thinking of something else.

Reduce abortion rights.

I'm pretty sure he advocates Roe v. Wade. People forget that he was a registered Democrat up to the the 1990's. A lot of people on the Left have been making assumptions about him like he must hate gay people... but he's actually been very supportive of gay rights.

Loosen environmental regulations, especially on coal.

Hope not

Abandon international climate accords.

That would be tragic

Reduce taxes on the rich.

A flat tax makes everyone pay the same percentage. Having more money would mean more money taxed but not a higher percentage.

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Percy, posted 01-20-2017 7:06 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by Percy, posted 01-21-2017 2:11 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded
 Message 163 by Percy, posted 01-23-2017 5:06 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

Inactive Member

Message 272 of 4573 (798622)
02-03-2017 10:10 PM

Opposites attract
At the heart of this Trump populism lies an inverse reaction. I don't think there's anything more responsible for the election of Trump than the Left itself. Actually, to be clear, I'm not referring to the Old Left but about the Regressive Left that is quite literally bat-shit insane. The Regressive Left is an extremist version of leftist ideals and principles that are quite honestly fascist in their approach. These are the kind of dickheads who will do anything to crush free speech, including the introduction of violence and in general behave childishly. You know, the kind that throw temper tantrums when they don't get their way.

Their most outspoken critics? Luminaries on the Left, ironically enough. People on the Left who aren't completely insane Social Justice Warriors have utterly denounced these fringe lunatics who are fast becoming the popular voice among the Left. Their stance is almost comedic... the same thing happened to the Right during the Bush years where the Right went far right and they became a parody unto themselves. It was an embarrassment to be associated with it and the mocking behavior became enough to dissuade more rationally-thinking conservatives. Enter the libertarian and Alt-Right years... the days of the Moral Majority Right has almost come to an end. They are dinosaurs headed towards extinction.

Well, now it's happened again but in reverse. And if Trump's presidency is as bad as it seems given it's start as a means of gauging its trajectory, the pendulum will swing in the opposite direction yet again in another 4-8 years.

But make no mistake, people like Chancellor Merkel and a legion of suicidal SJW's have gotten Donald Trump elected.

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

Replies to this message:
 Message 273 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-03-2017 10:23 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded
 Message 275 by PaulK, posted 02-04-2017 3:29 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

Inactive Member

Message 2119 of 4573 (835716)
06-29-2018 1:05 AM
Reply to: Message 2117 by Stile
06-28-2018 1:45 PM

Re: A Disaster of a Day
Each and every one of them have the same things in common:
-They are not required in order to "protect the worker" in the sense of providing a living wage and/or not abusing people
-They are, basically, a political group

And therein historically lies the problem with unions. At one time they were indispensably vital for giving worker's some rights. In modern times it's really just a Political Action Committee pandering for blue or red votes.

Why should non-union-ed people be forced to pay union-dues?

That was basically the thrust of the Supreme Court decision.

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2117 by Stile, posted 06-28-2018 1:45 PM Stile has acknowledged this reply

Inactive Member

Message 2157 of 4573 (836288)
07-13-2018 6:10 PM

.50 Cal Jesus Kills for your Sins
I'm still amazed that a large Christian base vociferously supports Trump even though he so obviously could give a crap about Christianity and is pandering to a base. Even at the height of my Republicanism and my Christianity, I could have never supported a more obvious wolf in sheep's clothing. How is this not GLARINGLY OBVIOUS? It makes no sense.

I could only attribute this support to a growing detachment from the actual tenets of Christianity with an amalgamation between American nationalism and Christianity. While I feel you can perfectly be nationalistic and a Christian, there is a clear line that cannot be crossed and still being able to call yourself a Christian. This guy not only steps over the line, he obliterated the line so that any inkling that a line is existed is erased.

While I don't think pacifism is exactly what Jesus called for, the hawkishness of these folks who would call themselves "ordinary Americans" have no real clue who the Jesus of the bible was. He's now become an extension of Americanism -- like some kind of glorified mascot or a cheap caricature of the real personage. Disgusting and idolatrous, if you ask me.

So... any Trumping Christians want to explain to me why I'm wrong?

Edited by Hyroglyphx, : Edit to add emphasis

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

Replies to this message:
 Message 2158 by marc9000, posted 07-15-2018 9:31 PM Hyroglyphx has responded
 Message 2165 by Theodoric, posted 07-16-2018 11:07 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

Inactive Member

Message 2159 of 4573 (836373)
07-16-2018 12:41 AM
Reply to: Message 2158 by marc9000
07-15-2018 9:31 PM

Re: .50 Cal Jesus Kills for your Sins
Do you mean he pretends to be a Christian and is really not, or do you mean he has something tricky up his sleeve, for a non-Christian act he plans to do in the future?

The first one

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2158 by marc9000, posted 07-15-2018 9:31 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2172 by marc9000, posted 07-17-2018 5:38 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

Inactive Member

Message 2225 of 4573 (836763)
07-22-2018 6:10 AM
Reply to: Message 2172 by marc9000
07-17-2018 5:38 PM

Re: .50 Cal Jesus Kills for your Sins
But the main reason his support increases among Christians today? Because of the way he reacts to the SATANIC HATRED that comes at him from all directions. Most anyone else would have resigned the presidency by now. He deals with it in a very measured, Christian way. He could have gloated a lot more than he did

Is that a joke? Seriously, is this a practical joke? This guy's entire Modus Operandi is to gloat, bloviate, jerk himself off, and to engage in Twitter wars like a 15-year old spoiled brat. You couldn't find a more glaring example of a self-important megalomaniac if you tried. And on top of his penchants to throw temper tantrums like the silver-spooned daddy's boy that he is, he thinks of his position as if the CEO of the entire world. This isn't an extension of his reality t.v. shows, though he treats it as such and this isn’t a game... China doesn't think it's a game. North Korea doesn't think it's a game... and if anyone is playing games, it's Russia playing Trump for the fool... at our expense. The collusion… that’s real too… Putin has something big on him, both in financial ties and (just hazarding a guess) something incredibly scandalous that he lords over Trump to shut him up and force him to play nice.

And you actually called him "measured?" Compared to what? Adolph Hitler?

Sure, his earlier public life didn't indicate a passion for Christianity, with his casino developments etc. but it was a long time ago. He is older and wiser now, and Christians believe he has a genuine love for the U.S. Christians believe he represents their knowledge that the bigger and more prominent a nation is

Sure, he blows lines of coke off the asses of high-end hookers, worships Mammon as if to Molech, and doesn't take that whole Bible-thingy too seriously... but, hey, at least he's not gay or a Democrat! Amirite?!?!

I get the whole lesser-of-evils thing... Hillary is as close to demonic as anything north of hell... I get that... we are simpatico there… but you and all the true believers really sold your soul for a not-so-subtle wolf in sheep's clothing. Just say that you're willing to compromise your own beliefs if it serves a greater political purpose... at least then you'd be honest with yourself, with us, and with Jesus.

As to your coveting his unending “energy” at his age, yeah, it’s called Mexican Supplements… or did you think his virility was other-worldly? That guy has been propped up by Speed for the better part of 3 decades. In laymen’s terms, he is jacked up on a cocktail of Adderall and TRT 75% of his day.

But, for all my criticisms of him, I will agree with one thing… CNN really is fake news. Utter trash… no better than the National Enquirer. But even then, he makes himself such an easy target for the smear campaign.

At the end of the day, I don’t see how you reconcile being a Christian and a Trump supporter. The two truly are mutually exclusive.

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2172 by marc9000, posted 07-17-2018 5:38 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

Inactive Member

Message 2226 of 4573 (836766)
07-22-2018 6:24 AM
Reply to: Message 2192 by Percy
07-19-2018 7:13 AM

Re: Trump's Quadruple Waffle
here's a compilation of Trump's statements over time.

What a nightmare it must be for Sarah Huckabee... Can you imagine trying to do damage control for Trump? Exhausting!

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2192 by Percy, posted 07-19-2018 7:13 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2232 by Percy, posted 07-23-2018 9:52 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

Inactive Member

Message 2227 of 4573 (836768)
07-22-2018 6:27 AM
Reply to: Message 2197 by ringo
07-19-2018 11:52 AM

Re: But that is a trait that defines the Evangelical Fundamentalist
Americans are idiots or they wouldn't have elected Trump.

Technically speaking, Russians voted for Trump and are considered geniuses for it

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2197 by ringo, posted 07-19-2018 11:52 AM ringo has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 2237 by marc9000, posted 07-23-2018 8:24 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

Inactive Member

Message 2314 of 4573 (837495)
08-03-2018 5:20 PM
Reply to: Message 2295 by Percy
08-02-2018 8:51 AM

Re: .50 Cal Jesus Kills for your Sins
Most states do not require proof of citizenship to register to vote.

But it should, is the point. You need identification just to get something as simple as traveling domestically. Why wouldn't you need it for something like voting? The problem is accountability. How do you prevent voter fraud without it. All kinds of shady practices, like people registering dead people to vote, have been implemented as an underhanded tactic to procure more votes.

There is no evidence of voter fraud by illegal immigrants.

Agreed. It's not the illegal immigrants that's the problem, it's the people [let's be honest, Democrats] who use it as a tactic to gain more votes than is allowable. The DNC panders to this base in exchange for votes. That's where the problem lies, not the illegal immigrants themselves... then again, they aren't allowed to vote domestically. And if you can't see why that's a problem, imagine a country the size of say, Luxembourg. Imagine if the RNC or DNC paid for Americans to go over there to exploit their lax stance on voting as a way to manipulate votes. The Koch brothers are certainly wealthy enough to fund a venture like that if there was an incentive great enough.

On the one hand it seems only right that we insure that only citizens vote, but on the other hand requiring documentary evidence will self-evidently reduce the voter rolls of the poor the most.

Yeah, we've heard that nonsense before... that it affects poor people, that it affects blacks, it affects immigrants, etc... There is nothing factual about that at all. I also don't think white liberals understand how condescending and patronizing they are to the very communities they profess to care so much about. Without even trying to be, the people featured in this are so unbelievably offensive...

If you believe that, then explain how poor people receive SSI benefits without something as simple as an i.d. card, which is accessible to virtually anyone that puts forth a modicum of effort.

Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.

Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2295 by Percy, posted 08-02-2018 8:51 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2315 by ringo, posted 08-03-2018 5:27 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded
 Message 2317 by NoNukes, posted 08-03-2018 8:03 PM Hyroglyphx has responded
 Message 2321 by Percy, posted 08-04-2018 9:24 AM Hyroglyphx has responded
 Message 2325 by Percy, posted 08-04-2018 10:42 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded
 Message 2329 by NoNukes, posted 08-04-2018 12:07 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded
 Message 2369 by Taq, posted 08-06-2018 5:22 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

Inactive Member

Message 2318 of 4573 (837501)
08-03-2018 9:47 PM
Reply to: Message 2317 by NoNukes
08-03-2018 8:03 PM

Re: .50 Cal Jesus Kills for your Sins
There is zero evidence that that in-person voter fraud happens on any significant scale and even less evidence that this is a tactic employed Democrats rather than the fraudulent voter. Why in the world you would bother to post something like that without offering any support is beyond ridiculous. Can you offer any? Why is it that the registration practice we are talking about are in just about every state and not just California. Do you understand that the requirements are part of the federal guidelines, or are you just mouthing off?

Yes, I know they are part of federal guidelines. And I think it's a good idea to amend those guidelines. I'm not arguing that voter identification hasn't been decided, I'm saying it ought to be on par with, you know, the rest of the planet.

The Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland, etc all have some kind of sensible legislation ensuring that people aren't voting more than once, that they aren't creating fake people to vote, or something as simple as disallowing a felon or an alien to vote in the election process.

But since we're on the subject, what is your reason why you think identifying yourself before casting a ballot is a bad idea? The only possible reason I could surmise is because you vote Democrat and you are aware that Democrats pander to the immigrant vote to bolster its numbers. By saying no id is necessary, obviously you're going to get a few people slip through the cracks. Surely you must at least concede that possibility. I'm not trying to be insensitive to your views or put words in your mouth, but what other possible motive could you have?

On the flip side, what are the negative effects of properly identifying people to vote?

The only reason I've ever heard is because it "targets minorities." How, exactly, is a complete mystery. I'm open to your thoughts if you have another narrative that I'm neglecting to consider

Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2317 by NoNukes, posted 08-03-2018 8:03 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2319 by NoNukes, posted 08-04-2018 1:38 AM Hyroglyphx has responded
 Message 2322 by Chiroptera, posted 08-04-2018 9:44 AM Hyroglyphx has responded

Inactive Member

Message 2323 of 4573 (837510)
08-04-2018 10:00 AM
Reply to: Message 2319 by NoNukes
08-04-2018 1:38 AM

Re: .50 Cal Jesus Kills for your Sins
In NC where I live, we have documented evidence that the Republicans sought to require methods for identification that they thought Democrats were less likely to have. According to the court record, legislatures reviewed voting information and then put in features that hampered voting for democrats. For example, gun permits are legitimate identification, but state issued college identifications are not. Please note that federal law is that students are allowed to vote in local elections and that requirements that they have NC state IDs and drivers licenses when many of them are not even allowed to have cars on campus serve no purpose other than making it difficult for students to vote.

So how about simple legislation that says a state issued i.d.? Simple. A state i.d. is accessible to anyone.

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2319 by NoNukes, posted 08-04-2018 1:38 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2326 by NoNukes, posted 08-04-2018 11:26 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

Inactive Member

Message 2334 of 4573 (837528)
08-04-2018 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 2321 by Percy
08-04-2018 9:24 AM

Re: .50 Cal Jesus Kills for your Sins
I said "proof of citizenship" and you replied about ID - they're not the same thing.

In most states, a requirement to obtain a driver's license is proof of citizenship. There are, however, Limited-Term Drivers Licenses issued to non-residents with proof of work/school visas. And, at least in Texas, it states the type of license you hold in big, red block letters.

Proof of citizenship is most often a birth certificate. Who do you think is most likely not to have a birth certificate, the poor or the rich?

I don't think that is necessary since in order to obtain an i.d. all that has been previously verified at the DMV.

You're asking how do we prevent voter fraud without accountability? Like laws to punish those who commit voter fraud? Don't such laws already exist?

I'm saying how else are you going to know who is or isn't a legal citizen without identifying who in the fuck you actually are? How else are you going to ensure someone hasn't voted multiple times? How else are you going to know if the person voting is the actual person and not a friend or a family member? A signed affidavit? Thanks. About as helpful as a pinky-promise.

Registering dead people? Sounds labor intensive. Here in New Hampshire voter registration requires proof of residency in the town you're registering, like a driver's license, a rental agreement from the past year, a property tax bill from the past year, a motor vehicle registration from the past year, a tax return from the past year, a dated public utility bill from the past year with your name and address on it, etc. It could be done, but not in any kind of meaningful volume, and certainly not in a small town like mine where the town clerk wouldn't fail to notice the first time you registered as someone else. My town isn't too big

Well, major cities are too big to know one person from the next. But here you are explaining NH's policies which sound even more restrictive than what I'm proposing. So what are you even arguing about?

Presumably one could present one's driver's license and vote as oneself, then return a few hours later and vote as one's deceased father (or mother if you're female) by showing their driver's license (expired ID's are fine if you're over 65), and just hope the same clerk isn't still there and recognizes you.

Hence the necessity of showing your i.d., scanning the friggin barcode on the back that is uniquely assigned to just you. Avoids all of that. I feel like you're unnecessarily complicating things to obfuscate how simple... and reasonable... checking someone's i.d. is.

You just agreed that there's no evidence of voter fraud by illegal immigrants. How could the DNC be pandering to illegal immigrants for votes when there's no evidence of voter fraud by illegal immigrants?

I'm saying Democrats heavily favor all things revolving around immigrants (legal or otherwise). There is an obvious incentive that you're pretending doesn't exist.

Are there any other political parties that pander for votes to their base. Does this look familiar?

Yeah, of course Republicans pander to their base... the issue is only relevant in the given context. The discussion is identifying yourself at a polling station and the reasons why. My only reason in mentioning Democrats and immigrants is to demonstrate the incentive that.

There can be do doubt that those least able to provide documentary evidence of citizenship are the poor and minorities. Voter ID laws that include a proof of citizenship have already been struck down in several states across the country.

The process to register to vote is far more complicated than obtaining a license, Percy. Stop acting like poor people are too dumb or just too marginalized to get something like an i.d.

Second, meaningful evidence is accumulating that voter ID laws disenfranchise the poor and minorities the most, for example Voter ID Laws Really Do Discriminate.

How does it disenfranchise poor and minorities to get an i.d? Ridiculous! 20-25% of the entire U.S. population is on some form of government assistance program. ALL of them are required to show proof of citizenship, proof of who they really are, proof of income, proof of address, etc... they already have i.d. in order to obtain those benefits... so this weak argument that it's just too hard for the poor is a complete fabrication. The "just blame everything on racism/classism" argument isn't a catch-all.

Ami would have received different answers from the black people in this video

If they're on food stamps, Section 8 housing, HUD, TANF, WIC, they already have i.d. See, there's an incentive for obtaining it, and they did, in order to obtain said incentive. One immutable fact about human beings; you can move mountains when money is on the line.

Looking this stuff up, SSI is for blind and disabled adults and poor children. Welfare is for poor adults and families living at or below 200% of the poverty level (deemed low income) or at or below 100% of the poverty level (poverty stricken). Welfare doesn't require a photo ID, they seem to be fairly flexible with regard to IDs.


So let's imagine you're working poor. You have no Internet, no car, no cell phone. You walk to work or hitch a ride or take public transportation. You never had a birth certificate. Imagine the effort it would take to qualify to vote according to the recently overturned Kansas voter ID law.

Yeah, that's why public libraries and public transportation and the welfare system in general exists... But these people just have to get out to vote, right? You're painting such a false narrative. You're really reaching here... And to think, this is your ONLY argument against identifying people at a polling station.

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2321 by Percy, posted 08-04-2018 9:24 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2335 by ringo, posted 08-04-2018 3:45 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded
 Message 2337 by jar, posted 08-04-2018 4:00 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded
 Message 2340 by NoNukes, posted 08-04-2018 5:30 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded
 Message 2350 by Percy, posted 08-05-2018 1:29 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

Inactive Member

Message 2336 of 4573 (837530)
08-04-2018 3:57 PM
Reply to: Message 2322 by Chiroptera
08-04-2018 9:44 AM

Re: Expand the franchise!
Just as a point of fact, all the European democracies, as far as I know, allow people convicted of felonies to vote once they've completed their sentences.

I find that acceptable too if I were king for a day. I personally am of the opinion that once you do your time, you do your time. As it stands in the US, however, you can't ever vote again. My point though had less to do with felons voting than it does with why we have identification in the first place and why something as important as voting wouldn't think that identifying people has no merit. I was just giving an example of why it might be reasonable to identify voters.

Another example is ensuring they are of the legal voting age! I mean, am I really being so unreasonable?

I will say though that the Republicans seem more interested about this particular issue than they do the KNOWN voter fraud committed by Russian intelligence. It benefited them so of course they'll casually shrug that off. The whole voting process in this needs a serious overhaul (I submit to you the State of Florida, if for no other reason).

My issue at present is that it is not an extraordinary request to have someone identify themselves for something as serious as voting. Just like the Republicans are doing by wiping away an obvious incentive when it suits them, I see Democrats doing it with suppressing voter identification... because there is an obvious incentive.

Oh, and howdy, Hyro. It's been a long time since we've chatted!

It's been years, Chiro! *raises a glass in a toast*

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2322 by Chiroptera, posted 08-04-2018 9:44 AM Chiroptera has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2342 by Chiroptera, posted 08-04-2018 6:08 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

Inactive Member

Message 2477 of 4573 (839753)
09-14-2018 4:01 PM
Reply to: Message 2475 by Percy
09-13-2018 8:33 AM

Re: Stephen Colbert Interviews Beto O'Rourke
I think he might have a chance.

Living in Austin I feel like I have a distorted view on Texan politics as a whole because it has always been a Blue island in an otherwise sea of Red. Naturally, I see "Beto" signs in just about everyone's front yard. I assumed that, while obviously popular in a liberal city like Austin, what is this guy's popularity in the rest of Texas?

Texas, once defined as the preeminent "Red State," is slowly turning Purple, much like what happened to Florida. Florida is now one of those swing states that on any given day an election could go in either direction. Texas, I think, isn't that far off. Texas has seen a massive influx of residents over the last ten years, many of which are disillusioned Californian democrats.

I, too, think that Beto has a pretty good chance. I think what ultimately will be Ted Cruz's undoing is that the Republican base, largely in part because of Trump, is fractured. Trump utterly destroyed Cruz in the primaries. So now Republicans either legitimately stand with him or can't stand the guy, whether they typically vote Republican or not.

As crazy as this sounds, I actually prefer Trump to Cruz (which is a lot like preferring gonorrhea to syphillis) for one reason only. Trump, for all of his faults, at least has the balls to actually be honest about who and what he is. Ted Cruz, one the other hand, is just the most deplorably underhanded, slimy, quintessential politician who would do anything for power. He acts like a rat, thinks like a rat, and even physically resembles a rat.

And while I certainly am not a Democrat, and while I certainly don't agree with many of Beto's policies, I do agree with many of them and at the very least he is measured, principled, and appears mentally stable and actually competent for the job. If I had to choose one or the other, I would choose Beto.

But, like I always do, I actually vote for candidates that I actually agree with and never choose the lesser of evils. If I find no 3rd Party candidate with better policies, Beto might be the first time I ever voted for a Democrat.

What I do know with certainty... is that Ted Cruz will never get my vote.

Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2475 by Percy, posted 09-13-2018 8:33 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2478 by Percy, posted 09-14-2018 4:48 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021