As a Woman and as a Business Owner, I have a few thoughts -
Don't show up for work tomorrow, don't show up again ( you can show up to pick up your paycheck in a few days (if you Must) after that......adios and buh-bye!
Teachers planning on not showing up tomorrow (some schools may be forced to close their doors) shame on you if you do this!
Take the high road, show up, tell your kids that you showed up for them.
Thoughts?
A day without women? Sure, let's all protest by taking a personal holiday. That makes sense.
I disagree with protest this one time as it is not focused on an obvious theme and that it leaves women without the luxury of just walking out of the job in the lurch. I have problems withTrump, but for the protests of the left to be successful, they cannot be aimless. Why invite confusion and division when all having this sentiment need to speaking with a single voice?
It won't solve anything. Life will go on and maybe your employer will terminate you. The day without immigrants was a waste of time and was hardly noticed - even in the agricultural jobs.
Ain't that the truth! And I'll tell you what else is the truth. The Public is Turned Off By Media's Relentlessly Negative Coverage Of Trump. Yes and the IBD/TIPP Poll which has been the most accurate poll on elections has the proof. http://www.investors.com/politics/publi … tipp-poll/
The left and the liberal media is not doing themselves any favors by the way they are behaving. Antics like a day without whatever just makes them look more pathetic, which is fine with me. Maybe it will lead to a day without the media, I'll stay home for that.
I'm working today because I appreciate having the right TO work.
Wonder how many of the protesters considered that? A great point!
I don't agree with this protest either, and neither did all of my girlfriends - we all went to work (yes, even in this uber-blue state of WA). However, I do understand why they are taking this extreme stance: many women feel as alienated by Trump as other groups of people he has insulted & offended. I found his International Women's Day Tweet to be amusing. He really is quite the doughboy, LoL!
This shines a light on what really is going on with the feminists behind this protest
https://youtu.be/Z5UX4Trwqbc?t=103
Typical! Don't acknowledge when a valid point is made, stay on script, be strong and yet vulnerable...all at the same time!
Back in the 70's we girls had a saying, "gag me with a spoon".
I so wish that these women could see how they are being manipulated and used. Every time pussy cat ears and body-sized private parts are distributed for them to wear.....in public....I cringe!
They are so busy fighting wrongs that they've been brainwashed to believe are being perpetuated against them, that they do not have time to notice, much less count their Blessings. They are missing out on precious Life in the greatest Country that God gave man!
Not alway Perfect, but definitely Precious!
Your men are behind you. We support you as you have enriched our lives.
I think this one misses the mark. I could understand the Day Without Immigrants because it was timely and relevant to current things happening under this administration, but this seems a little too broad and not conveying a clear message.
Not to mention the women who literally can't afford to take a day off, the women (like myself) who are stay at home moms who would have very hungry, unhappy kids if they declined to do any unpaid work, the women who are teachers and putting students in a weird position by not showing up, etc. I think it's pretty impractical and for a purpose that is not immediately clear.
Gotta love the response of Alexandria School System; they have canceled school that day because so many teachers "requested" a day off, but insist it is not a political statement by the district. Unless a "request" for an unscheduled day off is really a "demand" and automatically granted without regard to the needs of the district it most certainly IS a political statement!
http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/06/politics/ … index.html
I'm as unhappy with Trump as anybody, but I'd ask any woman whether or not she voted before I supported her in taking this approach. The march the day after the inauguration was positive. This action strikes me as negative.
Note: Just Googled this action and it is about much more than Trump. Hope some good comes from the effort.
Women are marching , why not ? Everyone in America is easily offended by something these days . Hey and why not a paid day off ? Why n=not close down the schools , hospital emergency rooms and ........... government offices -...........oh yea .......who would notice that ?
So for the Women, Moms, that will not be Protesting, with kids in school....they'll have to miss work to stay home with kids, if their kid's Teacher(s) decides to protest? Are these things ever really thought out?
So wrong!
Remember when the air traffic controllers decided they should go on strike? And what Reagan did about it?
Wish there were some unpleasant consequences for anyone leaving their work and "customers" high and dry to have fun protesting, but it won't happen.
They just don't care who may be inconvenienced, it's all about them it seems.
I don't believe it's about Trump specifically but about the equal treatment of women in the economy/workplace around the world.
I don't think anyone really knew what it was about, or cared enough to concern themselves about it... it wasn't even an issue in my state, everyone went to work... this is just the NEW NORMAL every day some group that feels discriminated against or disrespected blames Trump for all their woes and goes out and marches. The majority of people are getting desensitized to it and just tuning them out.
Really? maybe these will explain it - basically its called TDS Trump Derangement Syndrome, everything and anything is a reason to protest Trump ... why not? some people are being paid to do it.
http://www.vox.com/identities/2017/3/3/ … an-march-8
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/day … -1.2992239
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world … 16066.html
http://nypost.com/2017/03/08/13-arreste … ump-hotel/
How indeed? I'll be going to work, so I'm not able to answer your question. Hopefully someone else can.
Thank you Aime. I thought all we were going to hear from was men. Like they care.
Enlighten me Kathleen and Aime, what am I missing? Bring me up to speed.
*shrug* Who knows. I was just pointing out that I don't think this is as much about Trump as people seem to think it is. Again, this is part of the problem with the whole thing. They've not made it very clear what it's about or why it's happening or how it's going to help.
.....and yet, without knowing why, without reason or purpose, women will show up to protest.....something!?
Teachers, apparently, really are planning to show up to protest something...(their schools scheduled to be closed in advance on this day)
Why? Why do this to their students? Why don't the kids come first?
Some women will be putting their jobs in jeopardy, by not showing up for their jobs. Will we just see them in the News later, Attorney by their side, putting their Employers in a bad light, because their Boss dared to let them go when all they did was go to protest.....something!?
None of this makes any sense to me!
The notion of groups coming together is upsetting to many.
What do you think those pussy hats are about?
I'm all for coming together for a worthy cause.....but, what IS with those hats? (Not on a dare, with a cash prize)
Coming together for a worthy cause is great. But when the "cause" is to cause maximum disruption to other's lives, not so much. This could have been scheduled for a saturday, but it causes more disruption if teachers all simply leave their jobs and children during the week.
A protest that doesn't disrupt and inconvenience is not a protest.
You're not saying that it is okay to disrupt a child's life and inconvenience their routine are you psyche?
Missing school for a day is not going to traumatize anyone.
Sexual assault of the kind Trump boasted of on tape, could.
So could those parties he threw with young girls as bait for potential customers.
But I think the real issue is that some people are willing to stand up to a powerful man. That is hard to understand if all your training is to smile and be good.
Then stay at home and leave other people alone. The concept that you have the "right" to disrupt other people's lives because your cause isn't worthy of attention without that disruption is ridiculous.
So those civil rights and women's suffrage protests happened because they weren't worthy of attention otherwise?
Not quite what was said. According to Psyche, a protest is designed to interfere in other's lives, and it is necessary to do so. Not sure I agree, but that WAS the statement.
But if so, then it seems apparent that the disruption is necessary to gain attention. And if it is necessary - the desired attention won't happen without it - then it would seem that it isn't worthy of attention without it. That the attention is actually for the harm caused to others rather than the cause.
wilderness you are soberly right. The left isn't interested in a civil protest which btw a good example of such which did effect enormous change was the tea party protests which never disrupted anything nor caused violence. The left is only interested in causing anarchy, unrest and disruption - that is their end game while an expression of their grievances is only an excuse to cause violence. The FACT they have to pay people to protest and to cause violence or disruption in so doing only underscores that they are not behind any worthy cause despite their usual four letter word rhetoric.
While I rather doubt that the people demonstrating for bigger government are interested in anarchy, there is truth here anyway. Even so far that planners of major events often plan for violence as a necessary part of a successful protest.
Like all men don't care about the equal treatment of women in the economy/workplace around the world, Cochran? My oh my, talk about painting with a broad brush...your statement tells more about you than about men.
Hey you men posting here, how does Cochran's comment make you feel? Sounds like hate speech to me.
The wheels of government are hardly going to grind to a halt.
I'm sure men care - up to the point that it costs them anything. How many women are in our government? How many women are the boss in any corporation? How often do men rail about unintrusive government - except when it concerns a woman's body? How long have women been the majority in this country? (Always.) How often do women still make less than a man doing the same work?
If men really cared, 240 years later, things would be different by now. Lip service is cheap. Want to call that hate speech? It's fact. See how many men on HP can argue with any of that.
How many men have to stop working to have child after child and raise them while being totally supported by a working spouse? Women have to always so that means men don't care? All you spewed was left wing talking points and twisted thinking. It doesn't cost men anything to take care of women? You go from men don't care to they care up to a point...you make no sense and you change what you said as soon as it is challenged. Truth is, it is obvious women wouldn't have gotten to where they are today if men didn't care and it is obvious that you are a man hater with a very warped view of humanity from the dark ages, hence hate speech.
You can bet were I saying women today (and I assumed you were talking about men who are living today?) don't care about men you'd be the first one calling me a woman hater, you know you would, name calling is right up your alley.
Wow. The boys really have a lot to say on this subject, don't they?
So, what are soros' goals or platform with this one?
Yes, George, the man, Soros. The master puppeteer. He has men (and women) jumping every time he says jump. It is pathetic.
What are his goals?
http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/03/08 … n-protest/
http://nytlive.nytimes.com/womeninthewo … ashington/
top 10 reasons George Soros is dangerous
http://humanevents.com/2011/04/02/top-1 … dangerous/
Apparently, both sides have their 'dangerous' rich men doing their bidding. Let's talk about the Koch Brothers...
Koch Brothers Exposed: Why We Must Act—And How
https://ourfuture.org/fact_sheet/koch-b … ct-and-how
Inside the Koch Brothers' Toxic Empire
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/ne … e-20140924
What Do the Koch Brothers Want?
https://www.sanders.senate.gov/koch-brothers
You are so brain washed - Soros wants a one world government, you wouldn't know that because you didn't even read the links, you are uninformed and brainwashed by the left wing talking points you swallow without question.
The Koch brothers aren't globalists.
I'm not brainwashed and I could care less what Soros wants. Skin heads want pretty much what the Koch brothers want - and that is a good thing to you?!
I sure as hell would not have voted for someone like Bernie (very 'socialist'), although you saw how close he came to taking the Dem nomination from Hillary? I think those are the people you should be afraid of... and yet, not.
This world is a LONG way from even being able to consider a 'one world govenment'. It isn't even within reach. AND, the only reason most people are afraid of it is because of what they think the bible says about it (plus, all those apolcalyptic movies, LoL!).
The US has a very unique govenment that is able to pick & choose 'whatever works' out of a miriad of governing options that have been tried and either failed or succeeded long before we came along. And since we came later, we are able to adjust the ones we choose to make them work for us - or even think up NEW ones. I have every confidence that if we put people in that office who actually care about the entire country - not just their own limited ideologies - we can become stronger than we already are WITHOUT becoming a monstrosity people fear.
Likening the Koch brothers to skin heads says it all - you are in lala land which is a good place for misfits. When you use guilt by association arguments that your political opponents are not just mistaken, but are as evil as Nazis, you can not have a reasoned debate. Misfit you have predictably fallen to the Godwin's Law of Nazi Analogies in using the skin head logical fallacy. I'm not surprised you are so inept at debate as to go down that path. It further demonstrates just how wacked your beliefs are.
Well both sets pretty much want the same things, that's what I meant. If you combine the Koch's & skinheads (alt-righters) you get Trump.
Thanks for the rambling insult about me, its a typical T-fan regurgitation of his non-fans. I've made several really good points within this post that prove how sane & intelligent (both) that I am - but DON'T LOOK, LoL!
"The US has a very unique govenment that is able to pick & choose 'whatever works' out of a miriad of governing options that have been tried and either failed or succeeded long before we came along. And since we came later, we are able to adjust the ones we choose to make them work for us - or even think up NEW ones. I have every confidence that if we put people in that office who actually care about the entire country - not just their own limited ideologies - we can become stronger than we already are WITHOUT becoming a monstrosity people fear."
Well said, although I DO take a small exception to the idea that people with a specific ideology (most people in the country) don't care about the entire country. Even the radical right, who would force everyone to their religious views, want's God on the side of the country and their actions are pointed in that direction. The far left is much the same - socialism is the only true government that is good for the people and can endure. That both are incredibly wrong doesn't change that they are thinking of the country, not just themselves.
So while I also think that few people consider the country in their decisions, only themselves or a group they find in need, it isn't because they subscribe to an ideology. It's because they already don't care about the country as a whole.
If you understand why the U.S. Constitution exists and appreciate the fact that it does.....you care about the Country, as a whole. I think that is most people!
When you can understand and accept that the constitution prevents you from doing unto others as you please and understand and accept that it is a good thing that it does...THEN you care about the country as a whole.
When you understand that the Constitution exists to Limit the government, you'll appreciate the fact that it does!
When the government is Limited, that benefits the entire Country (We the People), as a whole!
Not sure that the Big Government crowd will agree with you, but I surely do!
You and Taze can hash this out Misfit, but for the record, I've never received any Marching orders from the Koch Brothers or from anyone else and if I were to...I'd not comply, I'd not act.
I'm impressed that you and your friends did not comply and worked instead during the 'Day without Women' protest.
For the record, I've never received any marching orders from Soros or from anyone else and if I were to... I'd not comply, I'd not act. Nothing to be impressed over - many of us stayed home; and those that didn't had their own reasons that I refuse to judge.
Oh okay, thought that you had posted that you chose to go to work. My Apologies!
I did go to work, that's what I meant, sorry - we didn't participate in the protest - and neither did any other woman I know.
The koch bros, seem to be pro private sector and for less government. Soros seems to be about creating dissonance for some advantage. Its one thing to use your money to change zoning laws so you can build laundry mats in la. Its another to use your money to create a gang war between crips and bloods as an analogy.
I was pretty sure there would be a perfectly logical distinction that made the right look good and the left look bad. What else is new? Maybe actually check out the links I left? Just a suggestion... I cannot imagine why so many who consider themselves to be 'right' are so damn SURE that THEIR political party is squeaky clean. I certainly don't think that about Dems or any other political party.
On the one hand, people in the US complain about the tyranny of their government. On the other hand, they complain about any group that raises a voice to protest government policies.
Why can't you grasp that conformity makes you powerless?
Will - Most of the US recognizes when their Government is overrreaching and bordering on tyrannical.
When members of my family and many other small business Owner/Operators, along with other law-abiding, hard-working citizens from L.A. to Roanoke and all areas in between, came to the realization that the previous Adminstration was (I'll be diplomatic here....bordering on tyrannical) we Acted!
There were no Marching orders that went out, there was no 'meet at the flag pole at 5:00' memo that went out through social media.
There was a natural rising up that occurred.
Concerned citizens from all walks of life ventured out of their comfort zones and the Tea Party was born.
Estimates of 1.2 Million peacefully Marched on the Capitol for a redress of grievances, without incident, without a strong police presence, without destruction of property and yet...it was played down in our media. We were misrepresented and we were targeted by agencies of our Government. But, even so, I think if you were to ask any person that was a part of it, they'd have no regrets.
In fact, they'll be sharing their experiences with their great-grandchildren some day.....I hope to live that long!
I can't speak for the women that participated in the 'Day without women' event/protest today or that participated in the Women's March a few weeks ago. I know that the same individuals are involved with the planning of both events and I know that others are scheduled for the first hundred days of Trump Admin.
I've heard from women today that do not know what today's protest was about...women that are on the opposite end of the political spectrum from me.
You yourself questioned the head gear some of these women have chosen to wear at these events. "What are those hats about?"
We hear a lot of screaming and emotion from them in the streets, but I've yet to hear why they are in the streets.
I questioned the fact that schools had to close their doors, because Teachers were taking the day off, without consideration of their students or of the Parents of their students. Why today? Why not a Saturday on their own time?
For what reason?
I've yet to hear!
If Trump were to get to the same point as Obama, bordering on tyrannical, Commanding that I purchase an item or I'll be fined and possibly jailed, forgetting or not caring about his Role or his Limitations (brought to us courtesy of the U.S. Constitution, thank you Founders)...you can bet your bum, I'll not take it sitting down!
This looks like a place a start:
https://www.womensmarch.com/principles/
You'd have to be American to understand that.
Exactly. It would be presumptuous of me to speculate on some crocodile dundee feller running some kangaroo express mail system in the outback. In other words their politics is theirs and ours is ours.
I think it would better if you could answer Will's question instead of just saying it is an American phenomenon. That is a cop-out.
The answer is that the only time the left are concerned about the tyranny of government is when they are not in office.
So, it can be also said that the Right only speaks of tyranny in Government when they are not running things. I know that, as well. We are no closer to an answer.
Absolutely untrue. The lefts platform is ever increasing oppressive mommy goverment that delves into every aspect of our lives. Also conservatives in cases have parted with their party eg the tea party.
I have to add here the "selective " and subjective nature of the perception of the left. What the left considers as "tyranny" could be someone simply telling them " no " or losing an election.
And what did the Rightdo after losing in 2009 and 2012, double down with obstructive politics?
The Right is objective? In a pigs eye.
Your perspective is yours alone, and believed me it is not shared. The Right is tyranny from another direction and much more real and unpalatable. We will get the upper hand in time. Your man will do it for me.
Well see ya in 4 years I guess. Hopefully before they can resurrect the borg lady, I will have warped outa the vacuum of the lefts enlightened minds.
At the rate Trump is going, we may not have to wait this long (4 years) he will run afoul of the law somewhere between now and then.
I have always said that he is over his head and out of his element and remember that you heard it here first.
To go to where no Rightwinger has gone before? Trump is the 'collective' in sheep's clothing.
For me it was never about Trump. I just could not suffer through this beeping at me for 4 years.
Don't blame me I was for Bernie, he was the best. If the Dems are going to survive, we need candidates of the Warren/Sanders variety.
I remember that one with Captain Pike. To change the subject a bit, have you heard any good things about the roll out of the new Star Trek on CBS later this year?
Havent heard a thing about it, great new news to me. I have actually liked some new Star Trek movies, into darkness etc
Took me a while to get into the new characters. I have been fixated on the "Next Generation" cast. "First Contact" was among my favorites.
Do a Google for the new Trek Series, I think that there is a teaser trailer, quite brief.
The right is running things now. The government is no less tyrannical than it was 3 months ago. Could we stop complaining long enough to see what might be done or is complaining all the left has to offer? Because that's what it looks like at the moment.
We offer dissent to the policies and direction of this current administration that is obvious to anyone who have eyes and can see.
Agreed. Is it just me, or is everyone more argumentative and rude - everywhere you go? I live in Seattle and I don't even want to leave the house, anymore. People are literally yelling at each other at stoplights about whatever. I know every dust-up isn't about Trump, but I think its related. People are frustrated all the way around.
I think that many people in the extreme isles on both the right & left both have things a bit confused - allow me to insert an interesting point that some of you may not have thought of...
Trump is in the WH now because of Obama - but NOT because Obama supposedly did such a bad job with the country. If you actually compare him to every other President before him, his record is pretty normal. Its because they were both elected into that office for the same exact reason: the people are sick of 'politics as usual' and obviously have been for a long time.
Obama was supposed to be 'new' - someone with less seasoning from Washington caked on him, someone with articulate intelligence whose mind we hoped would sort through the BS on Capital Hill and clean it up. Sound familiar?
In the end, Obama was a bit of a disappointment to many because he turned into your normal, everyday poltician - like the kind we didn't want him to become. However, Obama had really good reasons to become a compromiser (he is considered to be a very conservative Dem, in case you didn't realize that) - 1) as a black man with a scary Muslim name, he could not reach beyond 'the norms' as easily or conveniently as a white man - ANY white man. Can you imagine if Obama had talked to the American people the way Trump has? That could NEVER have happened.
And 2) it was a new step in a different direction for the political arena - a first step in a long time. It wasn't a good idea to go all gung-ho. Whether you want to realize it or not, Obama paved the way for someone like Trump to become accepted. I really don't think Trump could have been considered by us before 2008 - he's way too divisive, even by most (not all) GOP & conservative standards.
In my opinion, the country is simply trying to continue in the same direction it was a few years ago - but, there is one major difference. Many 'liberals' within the Dem party were also sick of 'politics as usual' & chose Obama to become their spokesperson. They took him under their wing, groomed him for a few years (plus, he DID have the appropriate education & some political experience) - and then had him hijack the election from Hillary in 2008. Anyone else remember that?
Trump is in office for an entirely different reason - he just started talking and saying a bunch of hateful stuff that resonated with angry GOP voters who had immersed themselves in GOP-framed HATEFUL media over the past 8 years of Obama being in office. He wasn't someone that The Tea Party found - he found them and manipulated their ideologies to suit his agenda.
I wish I had kept the link and I can't find it, now. This is just one example... I read a hub in here recently that was ALL about how gay people are causing God to bring fire & brimstone down upon this country; and how GOOD it was that we elected Trump into office because of it. Trump may be catering to conservative ideology by rescinding that one Obama bathroom policy - but, he had also been cheered by the gay community and was even given a rainbow flag during the campaign process which he PROUDLY accepted. Many gay people voted for him. He knows gay people are a group that is EXCELLENT for money & support if you can get them on your side - and that is all he cares about.
I don't know how anyone could have voted for someone like Trump, but that issue is moot now. I know many of my fellow Obama voters voted for Trump - its how he got into office. Obama got in with a 'majority' of the country supporting him. Trump did not. Whether they agreed with his policies or not, at least Obama acted 'presidential' and didn't have such an ugly, egotistical, manipulative personality to irritate the entire country and pit people against each other.
I would have voted for another Obama-type of candidate; but Trump wasn't it - and that is the disappointing thing about all this. That's not a complaint, that's just something I've come to accept and am dealing with - like so many others like me. Forgive us if it lingers for awhile - its not like Trump & Co. are doing anything that helps quell our fears or improve our opinions of him; and his supporters seem to be only good for throwing gas on the fire.
I just hope that people will not burn out on his hyped antics enough to keep paying attention, so that by the next election they're not too damn tired of things to even try, anymore. I know, its HARD when you can see candidates & media are manipulating you to get out and vote - LoL!
It's funny Misfit - I was just reading through the comments in this particular Discussion and thinking, okay we probably haven't changed any hearts or minds, doubtful any Party affiliations will be changed as a result, but we've been civil to each other.
A lot of personalities coming together here, from various backgrounds with different goals in life and I think that we all handled it fabulously!
Great discussion All! Thanks for being a part of it!
"I don't know how anyone could have voted for someone like Trump,"
Of course you do - you said yourself that it was a cry for something different than "politics as usual". When Obama was "groomed", and turned into just another politician instead of what was expected, why, the people decided that wasn't going to make it. Remaking Obama from another one of the people into one of the elite, PC to a fault and a good (if not great) politician it became extremely obvious that such a person was not what was actually desired.
I actually explain 'why Obama had to become a wishy-washy politician' as well as 'what's wrong with Trump' if you read the entire post. I know its long.
Everything that anyone who voted for Trump wanted COULD have been done without a hatemongering candidate. That is my point. Obama also attracted voters across both parties along with Independents. The 'change' he attempted to bring didn't happen by insulting & offending the opposition. You can't unite a country with a person like that - its impossible; PLUS it goes against our values as a nation.
Since Trump did not get a majority - simply because people didn't want to come out to vote for EITHER candidate, NOT because they WANTED Trump (those peeps kind of protested, don't you think?) - all Trump is currently doing is creating extreme policies that a majority in this country do not agree with. Which means, its going to be an expensive 'undoing' in a few years that will come with a bunch more fighting about the undoing.
Find a decent candidate people can respect, then you'll get somewhere.
"I actually explain 'why Obama had to become a wishy-washy politician' as well as 'what's wrong with Trump' if you read the entire post."
I know. And that's what I commented on - that the idea that he had to be a PC politician did not meet the approval of the people. Yes, Trump voters could have chosen another politician, but even according to you that isn't what they wanted.
But be careful - you're letting your personal bias and "leftism" enter here - Trumps actions are not extreme at all, and that "majority" just isn't there. About the only place that could be said is in the replacement of the ACA, and then only because the left has consistently insinuated that it will be repealed without being replaced, scaring the people that have insurance paid for by others. Not true, but a good way to divide the people, wasn't it?
Apparently, there ARE no "decent candidates" that are not politicians. And there are certainly no decent candidates that the left will accept while promoting policies from the right.
Because those that lean too far to the Right are questionable as decent candidates in my opinion. And don't say that you would not take a comparable attitude regarding leftwing candidates.
"Because those that lean too far to the Right are questionable as decent candidates in my opinion."
I understand that. And I understand that "lean too far to the Right" means anything to the right of pretty far left. If the number line runs from -10 to +10, anything greater than -5 is unacceptable. In that respect, I could take a "centrist liberal" if you understand what I mean. I don't think you could take the same from the right, though - you are a long, long way from center and if the policy of a candidate isn't also a long way left of center they are not decent candidates.
I understand that. And I understand that "lean too far to the Right" means anything to the right of pretty far left. If the number line runs from -10 to +10, anything greater than -5 is unacceptable. In that respect, I could take a "centrist liberal" if you understand what I mean. I don't think you could take the same from the right, though - you are a long, long way from center and if the policy of a candidate isn't also a long way left of center they are not decent candidates.
----------------------
Where do you get this idea from? For me,your positions with the exception of many social issues are very well to the right and you could not name a Democratic candidate that you could accept. You could take a centrist liberal, really? What would be your idea of a centrist liberal ?You are wrong, I was satisfied with Bill Clinton who was hardly a fire breathing leftist and I supporting him over the GOP nominee.
So I am not as far from the 'center' as you would have me appear.
Well, I don't know, Cred. Given that it is only an impression from posts on HubPages, still, it seems that everything you have to say increases govt. control over the populace. Everything is about playing Robin Hood. Ever more personally earned income must go to govt. Personal responsibility, and rights, are to be limited as govt. and the majority wishes. I see you as a big supporter of the nanny state.
So while you claim to be fairly central, I just don't see it. I can't recall a single conservative policy that you've ever agreed with, and that kind of says something.
On the other hand, I agree with Roe V Wade. I agree with kicking religion out of schools (and govt. for that matter). I agree with gay rights and with penalizing businesses that discriminate on sexual orientation. I agree the earth is warming, although I'm still open as to just how much is caused by mankind. I would fund Planned Parenthood even more than they are. I'm for subsidizing higher education (though not for simply paying for all of it). I'm for pure research. There is a great deal of the liberal cause that I find good - I just wish they would stay out of my pocketbook and quit legislating every possible action I take!
I am conservative regarding this genderbathroom issue for example.
I am more conservative about immigration procedures than I am liberal.
I emphasize work over handouts as far as public assistance goes and was fully in support with Bill Clinton's mend it not end it scenario for welfare reform.
I am an advocate of a strong defense but not of a profligate and wasteful defense establishment, does that make me centrist?
But like most on the left, I distrust wealth and its abuse and accumulation of power. Was it you that said that millionaires and billionaire are incorruptible because they already have too much money? I beg to differ, they are even worse and require the most oversight, because enough is never enough.
To think that the affluent is being put upon by confiscatory tax rates does not meet with my agreement these people have advantages and points of influence that the man in the street will never have. The government exist to pander to them and the institutions that work to their advantage.For instance, why isn't capital gains taxes at the same rate of those who actually have to earn a living?
Credence2, I'm starving here, so let me ask a hypothetical.
If you drew from your previous career experience and marketed something that amounted to a better mousetrap, and reached an affluence level in Bill Gates' neighborhood - without changing your personal perspectives, would you feel that you had become that which you criticized in your response?
Would you not play by the rules in-place? Would you not hire tax accountants or estate planners?
Would you not guard your wealth by all legal, and legitimate means?
As for your conservative Progressive credentials - your response sounds like someone that would say I am not a racist because my best friend is black, (ha! isn't that a chuckle)
I am glad to be able to offer you a back-handed Amen! to your declaration of conservative stances. I recall several of your "Damn right I am a progressive' conversations, (voter ID comes to mind), where when the conversation went beyond the rhetoric of labels, you frequently admitted to a more conservative than progressive perspective, (your views on the welfare state of Hawaii comes to mind here).
It's OK to be a conservative Progressive bud, and my perception of our past exchanges tells me that is where your heart lies. You just get a little carried away with some of your proclamations that parrot the extreme Left's talking points. Probably because you are responding to extreme Right comments.
I have previously offered 'good reads,' so now allow me to also offer a Stolis martini recommendation. It will do wonders for your 'chucklehead' tolerance level. And, make it much easier for you to admit that, Yes, you too are a Centrist Purple!
GA
Here's an interesting premise... What if there are not that many 'true' uber-left or uber-right peeps, anymore? What if there is a new group with mixed-ideologies forming; and what if that group of people are still in the process of coming together and getting organized?
Everything is a process and seldom a quick fix.
When you think about it, we've only been trying to change government since 2008 with a mere TWO presidents. Its going to take more than that while we wait for the old ones to pass on. In the meantime, we get to develop a NEW kind of fighting and put each other in PRE-labeled boxes to either despise or approve of.
Are we just re-defining new 'left' & 'right' stances cuz that's all we know? I've said this many times, too - I am NOT anyone's enemy, I'm a representative of anyone's GOOD neighbor and generally have the same damn goals about the things that affect us both as you do. Believe it!!
Well, when I think about it, we have been trying to change government, (as in you inferred sense), for a lot longer than two presidents. An easy to recognize modern president that seems to fit the bill of being elected to effect governmental change might be Pres.Reagan - 37 years and ten presidential elections ago.
With the exception of the time frame of FDR's four elections to the office, I would say your descriptions of; new groups, the forming of groups with mixed ideologies, and the reality of continually tweaked processes, (vs. quick fixes), can be said to apply to almost every president we have had since our first one.
You comment about waiting for the old ones to die-off, seems to illustrate a perspective - old is bad, new is good. I don't think that is good thing. The passions of youth are great motivators, but it is not until they are mixed with the wisdom of experience that they become good motivators.
And I do agree with your self-description - when it comes down to our daily lives, Left and Right have a lot more in common than typical political discussions portray.
GA
We've always tried to change govenment with every election, but Obama was the first where we tried to change it with a different tactic: by electing an 'unusual' potus: one who didn't have decades of Washington stains on him; one that wasn't nearly as 'experienced', etc.
And sorry about the 'old ones' comment, that was actually way off - there are young politicians entrenched in 'the old ways'; and you are certainly right about the benefits of experience the older crowd possesses. I greatly appreciated John McCain's comments almost every time he 'corrected' Obama; and I appreciate that he still sends them out to Trump. There is much value there and I stand happily corrected.
"when it comes down to our daily lives, Left and Right have a lot more in common than typical political discussions portray"
I honestly think that is our biggest problem. Because we can't look each other in the eye while we're having these conversations, its easier to just assume that whatever the media says about either camp is true. All media is tainted - ALL of it, in some way or another.
Hello again Misfit Chick, I can see your point of view regarding Pres. Obama's first election. On his second election, I think the Republican's failure to offer a similar new hope candidate, as in not just more of the same, had as much to do with his reelection as his first term performance did.
I certainly agree with your note that too many people believe what the media tells them. That isn't hard to understand when you consider that most folks barely have time to squeeze in the 6 o'clock or 11 o'clock wrap-up - between all the other things their daily life requires from them.
So consider... obviously news that plays to their perspective is the news they will believe. And they almost certainly haven't taken the time to examine the wrapper that bit of news came in, (the bias of the presentation). So, any contradiction to the facts they have accepted becomes a personal challenge.
We, (us forum participants), are talking politics because we enjoy it, and it is almost a past-time for many of us, so we go a lot deeper into topics. Non-political junkies - which means probably 95% of the voting public have other past-times; like taking care of the kids, or working a second job, or going to night school, or bowling and beer. Which means those images of pushing grandma over a cliff in her wheelchair, or our president promising we can keep our doctors are taken at face value.
Contradiction of facts we have accepted is seen as a challenge to our intelligence. And those are fighting words for all of us. ;-)
GA
Credence2, I'm starving here, so let me ask a hypothetical.
If you drew from your previous career experience and marketed something that amounted to a better mousetrap, and reached an affluence level in Bill Gates' neighborhood - without changing your personal perspectives, would you feel that you had become that which you criticized in your response?
-----------------
Yes, I can't be a hypocrite, what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Yes, I would do all to hold on to my money within the purview of the law but arguing about the merits of a progressive taxation code or being able to shelter my wealth from overseas from observation and virtually having the tax code designed by people like me to give the ultimate advantage would give me reason to pause about whether I am really being 'put upon' by society as a whole. Ultimately, I can pay as much or as little as I want so why make a fuss?
Wait a minute, your argument is based on absolutes, there is no one here that is at the extreme of either pole, left or right. It is all relative. Yes, I lean left relative to you or Wilderness, but there is some vestiges of conservatism as we understand it in my background. Just not as much as either of you.
I am glad to be able to offer you a back-handed Amen! to your declaration of conservative stances. I recall several of your "Damn right I am a progressive' conversations, (voter ID comes to mind), where when the conversation went beyond the rhetoric of labels, you frequently admitted to a more conservative than progressive perspective, (your views on the welfare state of Hawaii comes to mind here).
-------------
I am progressive regarding voter ID only in the aspect that the requirement is fairly applied and is not being used deliberately to prevent access to the ballots by certain groups. I may well go along with so form of identification as long as a student ID is given the same weight as a firearm possession license. Hawaii is an example of an extreme that crosses my line that able bodied people should be required to work over claiming public assistance. The difference is that the amount of support to the principles underlying the programs I would embrace more. But that is not without limits.
------------
It's OK to be a conservative Progressive bud, and my perception of our past exchanges tells me that is where your heart lies. You just get a little carried away with some of your proclamations that parrot the extreme Left's talking points. Probably because you are responding to extreme Right comments.
------------
I am a Progressive with a handful of conservative leanings but from the perspective of this culture, very few. So, I am true blue, with streaks of red one could discover only if you look closely. So, I have to hold my end against a strident Right wing drive, so yes, I am provocative at times and many times, deliberately. I don't think that there really are any extreme leftist types around since the Sixties, but I can't say the same for the Right.
Well look at you - fishing for another Amen!
Ok, you got it; Amen brother! I don't read you as one that would go the off-shore route. And I agree that we all should fight against the Extreme Right ... and, the Extreme Left.
But I still say there is a Purple tinge, (other than those admitted streaks of Red), to the edges of your Blue.
GA
Jeez, I can so identify with most of this, especially that last paragraph, LoL!
I just wanted to add that for the past eight years while Obama has been in office - that is how long those of us who voted for him have been demonized by the GOP within their tainted, distorted media - and I think we're pretty much beyond sick of it. That Trump was able to tap into their brainwashed 'base' along with misogynistic white men who couldn't vote for a qualified, experienced woman with much less BS in her background than Trump - is just as important.
This is how things start...
Don't TELL me that I'm not patriotic because I don't think like you. I've been called 'unAmerican' among other things. Don't tell me that *I* am brainwashed when you refuse to listen to anything but what is already in your head. I've told you what our problems are with Trump; and the only response I keep receiving is how stupid I am - but none of his fans in here can actually respond with anything other than the responses that have been programmed into you. I am really AMAZED at the extent this has gone...
No one is ruining 'your' country. Aren't any of you right-wing Christian conservatives AMAZED that Obama didn't turn out to the be anti-Christ?!!
And really... who has been running this country into the ground for eight long damn years?
"I just wanted to add that for the past eight years while Obama has been in office - that is how long those of us who voted for him have been demonized by the GOP within their tainted, distorted media - and I think we're pretty much beyond sick of it. That Trump was able to tap into their brainwashed 'base' along with misogynistic white men who couldn't vote for a qualified, experienced woman with much less BS in her background than Trump - is just as important."
---------------
Thanks for that, but I would have voted for Sanders over HC as simply the candidate who was more in tune with party and the direction in which it needed to move, Clinton's misreading of the tea leaves have cost us the election. Instead she kicks the large Sanders faction to the curve to embrace moderate Republicans, which are really a extinct species. What few numbers of those available were not likely to help much, this direction was reflected in her making the milquetoast Kane her running mate. She gets cozy with Wall Street and all that, entities,who in my opinion, are responsible for the 2008 meltdown. So, it is not just being a women, but being the correct candidate. I virtually begged Elizabeth Warren to throw her hat in the ring as one with far less baggage than Clinton as well as being one with the integrity toward progressive principles not to compromise them by sleeping with the enemy.
Me, too, on the bathrooms. But not for the common conservative reasons - my reasoning is based more on the immense majority that want it and the tiny bit of harm giving it to them causes a tiny portion of the population.
Immigration; but do you prefer amnesty for illegals in the country? That would be the test, I think.
Work over handouts, but does that include workfare? No work, no welfare? Or just that you (and all other citizens) would prefer that people work?
A strong defense, but with "strong" being defined by you, as you see fit. And again, I think we will ALL prefer not to have a profligate and wasteful establishment.
No, it certainly wasn't me that said billionaires cannot be subverted. Power is a strong inducement, to some more so than money.
But then with the "It's OK to play Robin Hood because they have more than I do". Unfortunately that is NOT an ethical or moral stance; when it meets the requirements of the Golden Rule, and you agree that they can have whatever you have to do with as they please... Simply declaring that because they have made more of themselves than you or others have is not a reason to take what they have to satisfy your humanitarian interests. You want those urges satisfied - satisfy them with what YOU have earned. It will mean much, much more than taking from others at gunpoint to accomplish the goal don't you think?
"For instance, why isn't capital gains taxes at the same rate of those who actually have to earn a living?"
I would be much more comfortable trying to answer this if you would first explain why earnings by a business are taxed as business earnings and then whatever is left is taxed again as personal earnings when the owners actually gets their hands on it. Those that "earn a living" (your derogatory term, not mine) don't have their income taxed twice by Uncle Sam - why should a business owner?
Me, too, on the bathrooms. But not for the common conservative reasons - my reasoning is based more on the immense majority that want it and the tiny bit of harm giving it to them causes a tiny portion of the population.
-----------
I have problems with the bathroom issue that pretty much in line with problems that conservatives have with it
---------------
Immigration; but do you prefer amnesty for illegals in the country? That would be the test, I think.
----------------
Reagan allowed amnesty for this group. while I don't like roundups, I can't say that I am for blanket amnesty at this time
----------
Work over handouts, but does that include workfare? No work, no welfare? Or just that you (and all other citizens) would prefer that people work?
------------------
Yes, it includes workfare. We should make it feasible as possible for all despite their circumstances to be able to work, but once we have done that, you must work or no benefits.
------------
A strong defense, but with "strong" being defined by you, as you see fit. And again, I think we will ALL prefer not to have a profligate and wasteful establishment.
-------
So? How do you define strong, how many more nuclear bombs do you want, Wilderness, before you are satisfied that we are 'strong'?
-----------
No, it certainly wasn't me that said billionaires cannot be subverted. Power is a strong inducement, to some more so than money.
------------
But then with the "It's OK to play Robin Hood because they have more than I do". Unfortunately that is NOT an ethical or moral stance; when it meets the requirements of the Golden Rule, and you agree that they can have whatever you have to do with as they please... Simply declaring that because they have made more of themselves than you or others have is not a reason to take what they have to satisfy your humanitarian interests. You want those urges satisfied - satisfy them with what YOU have earned. It will mean much, much more than taking from others at gunpoint to accomplish the goal don't you think?
---------------
I can't always explain the merit of a Progressive Tax system which is what you basically complaining about. Maybe you ought to get with the 1913 folks that created the federal income tax and shake it up with them. The rich pay more under such a system and that is just the way it is, you can visit with the 19th century to find reasoning more to your liking?
---------
"For instance, why isn't capital gains taxes at the same rate of those who actually have to earn a living?"
I would be much more comfortable trying to answer this if you would first explain why earnings by a business are taxed as business earnings and then whatever is left is taxed again as personal earnings when the owners actually gets their hands on it. Those that "earn a living" (your derogatory term, not mine) don't have their income taxed twice by Uncle Sam - why should a business owner?
---------------------
I am not an expert in fiscal matters, have to ask a few questions and get back with you.
Most of conservative protest is simply aimed at the modern world. Societies are more complex, populations are higher and more interactions need regulating to prevent one persons freedom becoming another persons unfreedom.
It is tedious for everyone to have their activities and energies channeled in one direction or another, or halted for the common good, but the options are chaos or, just as likely, violence, when interests conflict.
"halted for the common good"
You mean like the prohibition of smoking weed is for the "common good"? The current furor over bathroom use is for the common good?
While society is more complex and has lots more people, it seems to mean that there are lots more people wanting to dictate you we live just because they can.
Regulations more like:
outlawing the sale of complex financial derivatives laden with toxic debt,
banning grazing cattle in wilderness areas,
allocating scarce water resources in efficient ways
banning lead in paint,
discouraging drunk driving,
recycling rare elements
keeping the planet habitable for nine billion people
keeping the skies free of air crashes and the airwaves usable for broadcasters etc. etc
None of those were a problem in pioneer days (which many conservatives unrealistically expect to return to, it seems) but pressing enough now.
And that was a list made in two minutes.
Only governments can keep out societies functioning.
Bottom line: you need good schooling to pick your way through the multiple issues facing any business, these days but look on the bright side, you have Siri to help, lol.
I always forget about Siri. Every once in a while I'll accidentally activate her on my mini iPad and she scares me, LoL!
This was a really good point to make. Do you really think that people are capable of regulating themselves - especially where money is concerned? Isn't that how we ended up with the pre-Obama financial disaster that he dug us out of - large companies & banks NOT regulating themselves? Same with insurance companies: 'the people' had been complaining for decades about the way they make money and they didn't have to change anything until the ACA came along.
The trick is figuring out how to keep government honest & transparent so that the people can regulate IT. As I've said many times, its a slow, continuing process much like the concept of evolution. You don't get a perfect national healthcare bill with the 1st administration that brings it. You don't get perfect ANYTHING unless gov representatives work together to perfect it over time - and then, its never perfect and things are always changing. Government & Policies need to change with them.
If people could get past the fantasy that governments are unnecessary or intrinsically harmful they might take on board that the way forward is to exercise democratic control of them.
Governments that empower ordinary people can transform a nation's sense of itself.
Governments do not empower jumping beans. Worms inside the jumping beans do.
Any notion of how and why democratic governments came into being?
Could it be that ordinary people were tired of the tyranny of the rich and powerful?
The US was lucky to start its history without the burden of hereditary aristocracies and it fought plutocracy with antitrust laws and inheritance taxes.
But, over the last thirty years, tax cuts have concentrated more power into the hands of the few, and everyone else has paid the price.
Productivity, GDP and the wealth of your nation has increased. Wages and the quality of public services have declined.
And of course you are all a lot angrier and more miserable. Not sure I should sympathize, given the self destructive masochism involved, lol.
You are volunteering to be enslaved and that is not a pretty sight.
<You are volunteering to be enslaved ....>
How?
"But, over the last thirty years, tax cuts have concentrated more power into the hands of the few, and everyone else has paid the price."
Statements like this always surprise me, although they should not. But it almost seems as if you are saying that taking possessions from those that you deem to be too "rich" is necessary - that if you don't take more and more of what they have earned they will have power and the failure to take what does not belong to the people means they will pay a price. Yes?
But then you continue on to say "You are volunteering to be enslaved and that is not a pretty sight.", as if maintaining our morals and ethics (by not stealing) will result in becoming slaves. Another shocking attitude, and one I really have trouble with - is it truly your position that it is necessary to steal (ethically if not legally) in order to remain a free people?
"The US was lucky to start its History....."
The US started its History with the Battle of all Battles, not against their wealthy neighbors down the street or across town, but against an overbearing Ruler (Tyrant) across the pond.
We fought for our Independence, won and our Constitution was put in place to protect that Independence from all other overbearing Rulers which may set their sites on US.
"Angry and miserable"
Do you see Americans lined up at our borders, chomping at the bit to get out?
In what other Countries do you see Patriotism on full display, regularly?
How many leftist celebrities said they'd leave if Trump won, how many actually left?
I'll answer this one....None, dang!
We'd be Royally screwed without the U.S. Constitution. Many here do not grasp that and yet....unbeknownst to them....it is what keeps them from searching out a better place.
Unfortunately, a lot of the young, impressionable parade goers (protestors/agitators), that always seem "angry" (I'll not make any excuses for the older ones), have fallen prey to Academia (not all, but many in Academia), love to condemn this Nation class after class, term after term, year after year from behind the same podium, for they stay put, in their cushy, tenured positions. (the same can be said of many of our Elected Representatives, in particular, Democrats)
You have a couple of lingering questions yet to be answered.
You just like to argue and/or your perspective is so deeply embedded as fact you can't even SORT of consider another one.
"Yes, Trump voters could have chosen another politician, but even according to you that isn't what they wanted."
There are varying reasons for why people voted for Trump. Some were uber-conservatives who have to do something about abortion and felt like they had no choice; others are fans of hate radio and gobbled Trump's hatemongering as if it were candy - especially anything that has to do with 'the left' or Hillary; still others are preppers who view Trump as the means to somehow accomplish what God wants for the end of the world; and still other voted for him because they actually liked his policies and considered his insults to be nothing but 'locker room talk' to be brushed off...
The point is that MOST people stayed HOME instead of voting. Obama won the election against GOP in 2008 with most of the country behind him - many MANY of them were people who stayed home this time around. Many of them voted outside of their normal party in 2008 in an effort to bring something different to Washington.
Trump doesn't bring anything different - we're right back with the same GOP warmongering, fearmongering & HATEmongering regime because MOST of us stayed HOME instead of voting. You know this.
"there are certainly no decent candidates that the left will accept while promoting policies from the right"
That isn't true... Before McCain chose Sarah Palin as his vice candidate, I probably would have voted for him up against Barack. I appreciate some conservative policy stances as many of us do.
But you seem to be assured that only the real whackos out there voted for Trump, coupled with a handful of "real" people. That isn't so - 60 million people were not of the far, far radical right. The vast majority voted for Trump for the reason I said; that the normal politics of America had deviated so far from running the nation that something else had to be tried.
Sorry - "most" people voted - some 125M out of 150M registered voters. And frankly I'm sick and tired of hearing that "most" people voted for Clinton - that she won the popular vote by under 2% means almost nothing. And as the popular vote isn't what counts it means even LESS than nothing - it's past time to move on past that complaint.
"Trump doesn't bring anything different - we're right back with the same GOP warmongering, fearmongering & HATEmongering regime because MOST of us stayed HOME instead of voting."
Sorry, I know nothing of the kind. That you allow your far left bias to produce such ridiculous terminology merely says that nothing short of far left will satisfy you. Well, you don't have it - live with it as the rest of us lived with a liberal government doubling our national debt and forcing the biggest single expenditure the world has ever seen onto the American public.
"That isn't true... Before McCain chose Sarah Palin as his vice candidate, I probably would have voted for him up against Barack. I appreciate some conservative policy stances as many of us do."
And that is to your credit, just as acceptance that some of what Obama did was actually good for the country is to mine. But I think you will agree that those screeching so loudly and bashing Trump at every opportunity aren't going to agree with you.
Well, we all survived yesterday's events. Today everything can go back to the way it was.
The Tea Party movement was an exception! There were many Conservatives involved, but there were also Independents, Moderate Republicans and Democrats involved. It wasn't like anything I've ever experienced before. Doubtful will ever experience again.
It wasn't about pushing an agenda or wanting to hold back progress....it was only about reminding our Government that the Constitution exists, to limit them and their actions! They had forgotten their place, overstepped their boundaries and needed to be brought back to reality. Obama seemed to think... that he was above it all! No one had ever told him that he's not. We did.
No chaos, no violence, no destruction of property.
I did witness one pathetic act. We were walking toward the Capitol building and a woman that had obviously been brainwashed against us, was completely oblivious to what we were all about...came out of nowhere....spit in some faces and spewed a lot of ugliness. She wasn't attacked, but she was held against her will, until a Police Officer came and took her away.
Don't make me take back my civility compliment now Ya'll...Yousguys...Peeps!
People: Don't loose your sense of dignity. Ignore the BS, I say. Whatever promotes your own worthwhile cause. Don't go for the mass hysteria.
How about improving your community? Does that matter? Or is it perfect already?
Maybe just a cycle lane, or a small park, or a pool for the kids, or a place to absorb the energy of teenagers, or a place for seniors to hang out...
Would any of those things make life better?
The small town I grew up in had a nice park, but the playground area was in sad shape. The residents got together, gathered donations from local businesses and built a unique and useful playground themselves. Lots of sweat equity from lots of people went into it, but it really payed off and not a single dollar came from the city.
The residents of a gated community I lived in got together and did the same thing, creating a fun 9 hole mini-golf course at no cost to the community. Paid for by donations and built by the people.
Perhaps we could "demonstrate" in an effort to get people to provide the labor and materials to make a cycle lane or place for seniors? Or would people just say "Not my gig - let the taxpayer fund it."?
So true. We are the best at coming together for a good cause and getting done what needs to be done.
Sadly, it so seldom happens. We've decided that only "experts" can hammer a nail or dig a hole.
They now are planning LGBT Protests Against Trump for L.A., New, York & Washington D.C. marching in the streets.
How about a day without LGBTs, where is that protest if "a day without" protest is so good?
by Credence2 6 years ago
This one sticks in my gullet, ladies and gentlemen. Please see the attached editorial and any supporting background material you wish.https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions … b95f651c25Just who does this guy ( Trump)think that he is? He uses the ‘excuse’ of excess costs to the government to...
by Susie Lehto 8 years ago
Obama's stand-down orders have been changed, now police can deal with the anarchists and anti-Donald Trump protesters from blocking traffic. They took these guys down gently but firmly. Portland Police respond to protesters blocking traffic 1/25/2017* ...
by Mike Russo 17 months ago
I am no psychologist or psychiatrist, but I have had enough therapy in my 84 years to be able to teach classes on Cognitive Base Therapy (CBT) and Dialectic Based Therapy. (DBT).CBT is very simple to grasp. It is based on reframing your negative thoughts that are bothering you. Either the...
by Ken Burgess 8 months ago
Bread and Circuses for all...We have the wonderful many various Court Cases against Trump. As well as anyone foolish enough to stand by him and try and defend him... felonies for them, one and all.To some, that says more about how corrupt our system has become than the people who are...
by Jack Lee 8 years ago
Look who is protesting the election results. Would the right do the same if Hillary had won?The answer is obviously NO. Now we see who are the real intolerant, the bigots and the deplorables...It is ironic how the left talks about inclusive except when they are doing the chosing...As a spectator of...
by Catherine Mostly 7 years ago
#ProtestTheVote – A protest by the American public against the way the two main political parties have continued to deflect their responsibilities toward serving We the People while attempting to manipulate, blame & condemn instead of researching, discussing & solving America’s issues.VOTE...
Copyright © 2025 The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of The Arena Platform, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
Copyright © 2025 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective owners.
As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.
For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://corp.maven.io/privacy-policy
Show DetailsNecessary | |
---|---|
HubPages Device ID | This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons. |
Login | This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service. |
Google Recaptcha | This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy) |
Akismet | This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy) |
HubPages Google Analytics | This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy) |
HubPages Traffic Pixel | This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized. |
Amazon Web Services | This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy) |
Cloudflare | This is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy) |
Google Hosted Libraries | Javascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy) |
Features | |
---|---|
Google Custom Search | This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy) |
Google Maps | Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy) |
Google Charts | This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy) |
Google AdSense Host API | This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy) |
Google YouTube | Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy) |
Vimeo | Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy) |
Paypal | This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy) |
Facebook Login | You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy) |
Maven | This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy) |
Marketing | |
---|---|
Google AdSense | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Google DoubleClick | Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Index Exchange | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Sovrn | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Facebook Ads | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
AppNexus | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Openx | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Rubicon Project | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
TripleLift | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Say Media | We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy) |
Remarketing Pixels | We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites. |
Conversion Tracking Pixels | We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service. |
Statistics | |
---|---|
Author Google Analytics | This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy) |
Comscore | ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy) |
Amazon Tracking Pixel | Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy) |
Clicksco | This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy) |