World War III?
♫ . . . and another one bites the dust . . . ♫
As I see this topic has also turned into another Trump thread, I might as well mention the latest tidbit—relative to the NYC tax case(s?). It should be on the evening news later.
Credible sources are saying that Sitting President Trump channeled White House staff funds to his hairdresser, and then, claimed those expenses as business deductions. The sources say that the NYC DA's office has paper documentation from the tax records Trump was forced to hand over.
GAThat has got to be one of the most criminal offenses I have ever heard of a politician attempting.
I am outraged.
It's right up there with Hunter Biden getting 1.5 Billion from a Chinese bank for his investment firm.
These people use any loophole they can find to take payoffs or swindle taxpayer dollars.1789-1872: $25,000 a year
George Washington
John Adams
Thomas Jefferson
James Madison
James Monroe
John Quincy Adams
Andrew Jackson
Martin Van BurenDeleted
1969-2000: $200,000 a year
Richard Nixon
Gerald R. Ford
Jimmy Carter
Ronald Reagan
George H. W. Bush
2001-Present: $400,000 a year
George W. Bush
Barack Obama
Donald Trump
Joe Biden
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-mete … no-salary/
WOW, what a story! Every leftwing media outlet has picked it up and ran with it. We have all kinds of crap going on, and this is the slop they feed up.
Ken, it certainly shows how very dispersed the Democrats are getting as they should be. They could not get him with Russiagate, or Taxgate, now they reach for hairgate... Wow, he should get life for this crime... This one is laughable.
2024 can't get here fast enough.
Those that cannot be trusted in small things, are not to be trusted with larger things.
For some of us, honesty is an important character trait for one who wishes to lead.That's the blockbuster part of the claims. It was almost a state secret. Nobody knew. It was buried deeper than Watergate's Deep Throat penetration.
It is said to be an accounting entry linked to a Trump business account, discovered by the DA's forensic auditors, that tied things together. They found matching transfers from the White House Office of Budget.
GAWe will get this slippery serpent long before 2024 gets here.
But will you get his clone? (please take this as a joke as I meant it)
With my luck, Trump or a version of him will appear in 2024, he is a very difficult individual to dispense with.
Here is my choice:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gV63o1TnWTcVladimir Solovyov, who hosts the show Vecher (Evening) on Russia's Channel One played a clip of her on Fox News (with Tucker Carlson of course) giving her view of Biden's comment on Sunday in Warsaw that Vladimir Putin "cannot stay in power."
Solovyov told the panelists on his show that he was going to show a clip of Monday's interview with "our girlfriend Tulsi."
After the clip ended, one of the panelists, journalist Vitaly Tretyakov, quipped amid the crosstalk "Is she some sort of Russian agent?" prompting Solovyov's answer? "yes."
https://twitter.com/JuliaDavisNews/stat … -c95WLCGhQWell that would be perfect then.
If we have a Russian agent as President we won't have to worry about nuclear war with Russia, we can all just get along peacefully and not worry about the end of civilization.
Sign me up.
I'll take that over the alternative (Biden & Harris) any day of the week and twice on Sundays.
Noted, I can't slight you for your selection, but she is too conservative and Republican for my palette.
No, I mean a true clone... Orange hair and all... LOL
I was around my well educated, well placed, in-laws a while back.
They got around to talking about Trump voters.
They have complete contempt for them.
They think they are ignorant and beneath them.
That is what the 25% or so diehard Democrats think about the 75 million people who voted for Trump. In particular the well-off ones who preach all about equality and opportunity... but when you go into their neighborhoods you will be very hard pressed to find a person of color living amongst them.
Their children will never attend public school, so its ok to teach CRT and to expose children in pre-school to Gender Identity to those who can't afford private schools or tutoring.
Its not conducive to a civil state.
What I have learned most from these highly volatile political years we have had pre-Trump -Trump- post-Trump is that you can be a highly intelligent person, but lack in wisdom.
You can be very successful in the world of academia, or finance, or law, but have very little common sense.
These "elites" of society that have no real contact with either the poor or 'Middle Class" of America, think they are solving the problems for the "less fortunate" but really they only make matters worse... and they are often far more ignorant than those they think they are helping.There are no public schools teaching gender identity to preschoolers or CRT. It does not exist. Again, go to your local school district, peruse their curriculum set for every grade and let me know which materials they are using to teach this? Also the publisher of the book. I have not seen any evidence of this whatsoever. You are also able to contact the publishers predominantly used for curriculum. Harcourt brace, Mifflin, Pearson. You can ask them which of their materials covers these subjects. I have not seen anyone provide this evidence so far.
These are anecdotal. Just because someone put together a book list doesn't mean it's been adopted by any public school. I'm talking about factual information from a public school district that lists teaching such a curriculum and which material is used. This information is completely readily available to anyone by way of your school district website. Your textbooks will be identified. This is baseless.
Republicans’ midterms pitch: never mind the policy platform, here’s the culture war.
"Let's be clear: critical race theory is not taught in elementary schools or high schools. It's a method of examination taught in law school and college that helps analyze whether systemic racism exists — and, in particular, whether it has an effect on law and public policy," Weingarten said. "But culture warriors are labeling any discussion of race, racism or discrimination as CRT to try to make it toxic. They are bullying teachers and trying to stop us from teaching students accurate history."
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/critical-r … t-history/I think Weingarten nailed it. The label of CRT has been hijacked. I don't think the current "CRT" discussions have anything to do with what CRT really is.
Although I wouldn't doubt that there are some teachers that may push their own agendas, (the anecdotal stuff), I haven't seen any evidence that "CRT" is a legitimate curriculum complaint.
I see it as the dripping red meat flag of `It's about the children.' And that is a tool that both parties use.
GAAnd it does not help that everyone involved in all of these conversations is working from anecdotes, not actual collected state or national level data.
The debate is going to continue, if for no other reason that some GOP candidates will see the Virginia governor’s race as a sign that beating this particular drum wins elections. But it’s not a debate about Critical Race Theory. It’s a debate about parents’ roles in school, about trusting teachers and schools, about school’s role in society, about how to deal with race and racism (or how not to deal), about how schools can best support all their students (or not), about which books to put in libraries, about how to bring children up to be their best selves, and, unfortunately, about how to use fear and anger to drive clicks, views, and votes. It would be helpful for all of these important discussions if we talked about what we’re actually talking about instead of continuing to throw around a term that has been, for the general public, emptied of all real meaning. all of this is driving needless contentious and divisive relationships between teachers and parents. Concerned parents should seek an open dialogue with their child's teacher but it seems that kicking, screaming tantrums at board meetings are more fun for some parents these days. And as a long time educator I'd be willing to bet my pension on the fact that most who show up and scream have never set foot in their child's classroom, never attended a conference or a curriculum night.I think if you choose to do some digging, you may find otherwise.
Not that I am advocating for you to do so, your penchant for getting into the depths of the details might just derail my position ;-)I created a misunderstanding Ken, almost purposefully. I recall a discussion that offered a sortta 'benchmark' for "CRT" discussions. What is really being discussed was labeled as CRT 2.0. It has nothing to do with the original and authentic CRT study, CRT 2.0 is all about white vs. Black racism issues. And that can be shown to be factually wrong. In short, CRT was hijacked because it was about race and has Race in its title.
My point wasn't about the truth of your anecdotes, but to the point that they are claimed to support something that they clearly don't. They might be CRT 2.0 accurate, but they are CRT inaccurate.
That isn't intended as a semantics argument or a `well, you know what I mean' criticism, it is intended to stress that there can't be any `well, you know what I means' in a legitimate discussion.
GA
Example after example can be found where curriculum is not being followed and there can also be found districts that have chosen to follow CRT disregarding directives to do otherwise.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news … in-schools
https://news.yahoo.com/missouri-teacher … 57255.html
https://www.thelibertybeacon.com/illino … s-oppress/
https://www.yahoo.com/news/opinion-lett … 12740.html
Thanks for providing these links Ken.
I am seriously slacking in following up in these discussions.Yes and again, didn't mean to get the thread off track.
Despite the links and overwhelming proof that can be found online that these things are occurring in our school systems, this wasn't the thread to do a deep dive into the issue.
As I said, back to WWIII... which by no means is a threat that has gone away.
Putin is old (70), American leadership right now is ancient, Biden is 80, Pelosi is 80 years old (17th term). Majority Leader Steny Hoyer is 80 years old (20th term). Majority Whip James Clyburn: 79 years old (14th term)... Schumer, Sanders, McConnell (80 years old).
Not only are their views on war ancient, they are out of touch with the younger generations. These people are the age of great grand parents... they don't belong deciding the direction of the country, they belong in retirement.
For Democracy to function, its leaders must be reasonably in touch with the bulk of the population, when a nation's entire leadership (Minority Whip, Majority Whip, Speaker of the House, President, etc.) are too old... which is just as bad as if you are too young... you aren't in touch with the needs and issues of the general populace.
Between the wealth these people have, Putin, Pelosi, etc. and their disconnect from the common people, the risk of WWIII is real... very real.
We don't have a John F. Kennedy or Obama or Clinton... these men went out of their way, during times of crisis, to avoid escalating matters into larger conflicts... especially with Russia.
We don't have that today... we have a geriatric leader who unwittingly called for the removal of Putin in front of all the world's assembled cameras no less, as we stand on the verge of nuclear war.There is nothing to disagree with here.
I would also add, beyond the geriatrics; due to today's twisted political climate, we ACTUALLY HAVE a man in office who is completely incompetent, undoubtedly compromised, in way over his head, out of his league, a loose cannon.
We have put a carbon copy of the man in office, whom so many, so desperately, attempted to make Trump out to be.Ken, I can't disagree with you here. In my History class I was told between the age of 55 and 60 are okay for mature leadership. But if a candidate is not well educated past your Associated Degree level, they'll be misfits for the task of the office. I think it was Ronald Reagan, who said the 'buk lies on my desk'? He may be mature enough. But can youths in they 50's say no to WWW 111?...unless these knows the consequences? You know they're very turbulent, right? Geriatrics provides a safer level(Biden) he don't ever like the war even with his 'half brain'. It's probably up to the guys at the United Nations to bring that war monger Vladimir Putin to order.
No, It was Harry Truman who coined the adage "The Buck Stops Here".
Thanks Credence. Repeat: 'The Buck Stops Here'.
Many people are still quite competent when they are 70.
Very few are what I would say are capable and competent when they are 80... to the level that they can be running a business, or a crew, or in this case a country.
At 80 and above many are restricted in activities, in energy, and often have declining mental faculties. Now some do quite well into their 90s, but from my experiences, they are a small minority.Then, Ken,
You have to recognize that under the circumstances that you laid out Putin may well be in his prime and being 70 is not an impediment.
Reagan was 69 when elected and did not leave office unti he was almost 78. The same age everybody is saying makes Biden senile.
There remains, still, quite a variance in how people age and the faculties they either lose or retain.Credence, . I can only pick a flaw in your last paragraphe. How people age even baffled medical doctors and scientists. So a lay person like you and me are at a loss. Seriously, we've got to put up with the process by making small but vital changes in life styles. And now fyi, it seems we're digressing again.
. How people age even baffled medical doctors and scientists. So a lay person like you and me are at a loss.
----
You right we are, that is what I said and because it it may mean that just because someone is 75 does not mean he or she is automatically ready for the "undertaker". Because we don't know may well mean that we cannot make assumptions.
This is true, Putin is old, 70, and detached from regular folk and younger perspectives. This makes him dangerous... not incompetent, but prone to other concerns like paranoia.
Reagan, as we know, was suffering from early signs of dementia. In 1987, The New Republic ran the headline: “Is Reagan Senile?” But the takeaway was more about Reagan’s seemingly calculated forgetfulness than possible dementia.
He was still quite functional, but definitely declining.
Biden is in worse shape than Reagan was when he left office and Biden has a long way to go before his term is up.
And it's not just Biden, its Pelosi, Schumer, McConnel, etc. they all are 80 and beyond and they all need to be removed from DC and decision making for our country.This sounds like something from the sixties cult classic "Wild in the Streets".
No... this isn't an under age 25 revolution...
Most people over age 80 aren't capable of taking care of themselves without help, they damned sure shouldn't be deciding America's fate. They are out of touch with new technology, new philosophies, and the hopes and aspirations of younger generations.
Power corrupts... that is the only reason why I can think that people in their 80s that have more than enough wealth to do whatever they could dream would waste their remaining few days politicking in DC.Maybe it should be Solent Green instead?
We vote in these geriatric servants. Age has been associated with wisdom and experience. Is your magic number 70? I don't know that I want to draw a line based solely upon that, incapacity has to be demonstrated to be considered and that could be the case for even younger candidates. One of my heroes, Abe Lincoln, took the time to familiarize himself with the telegraph and its technology, teaching himself how to communicate with the Union Army using it. The capacity of anyone to learn and adjust cannot be discounted.I'm calling BS on that one, Cred.
"WE" don't vote these out-of-touch relics in... "WE" aren't given a choice... Biden or Trump. Pelosi or... well no-one... she has her spot locked up tight, the corrupt politics of a one-party State like CA.
I didn't choose Biden... YOU didn't choose Biden... the people that control the DNC, the Party, chose Biden.
Biden was getting his ass kicked by just about everyone, he came in FIFTH in New Hampshire... then Walla!!! Presto!!! ... he was trouncing everyone and was handed the nomination... magic!!!
Suddenly America went from considering him a laughing stock to considering him the best nominee ever!!!
Even then, he couldn't fill a town hall... let alone a stadium. That tells you something, or it should.Republicans did not want an alternative to Trump. I know that we are being steered toward certain candidates who basically will not threaten America's oligarchy and their continued control. Going back to the smoke filled rooms of the past, when has it been different? Maybe a parliamentary type system to prevent domination by 2 political parties?
What happened with Biden in 2020, is what happened to Sanders in 2016. The Republicans and their so called populist conservatism is no better.
South Carolina was the turning point for Biden, along with Bloomberg getting into the race to thwart the momentum of IMO better candidates who were not in bed with Wall Street, insured Biden's ultimate nomination.
It is just as I said, I am looking for a viable alternative. CAmpaign finance reform was a direction that began to address the problem, but it was the conservatives that were opposed the idea, saying that corporations were people. So, who is actually working to bring this under control verses who it is that is just going through the motions?Here is the difference between Trump and Biden...
In 2016 the RNC didn't want Trump to win, they spent billions trying to derail him, they considered trying to "fix" it so that Cruz would get the nomination.
He won because people voted him in.
The Democrats, who have their Super Delegates are able to avoid a populist (or popular) candidate ever winning the Nomination.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- … SKCN0W20J0
As for Biden in 2020... his campaign was almost over before it began, until some typical Democratic primary shenanigans took place and then popular alternatives, like Sanders, all dropped out and unified behind Biden. The DNC wanted Biden as the nominee, just as they wanted Clinton instead of Sanders in 2016.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/08/us/p … paign.htmlBiden won almost half of the available delegates in 2020. He won the majority of state primaries/caucuses with Bernie Sanders taking a handful of states. The super delegates had no part in 2020. Delegates lined up with the votes of the people. There was no subversion.
That's your take on it, we will just have to disagree.
That's not a take that's an actual reality. So you are essentially saying that all of the votes in the Democratic primaries and caucuses were also rigged somehow? Votes changed behind the scenes?
The concrete FACTS are becoming exposed, revealed and known
for those with ears to hear, eyes to see, and brain to contemplate and comprehend.Not quite.
That is what you choose to accept as reality, or fact.
There is a difference.
If you go to several different sources, all which you deem credible, that provide for you information and you accept it as factual, then for you that is what it is.
That doesn't mean it is true, or right, or fact. It is simply what has become considered by you as true, right and fact.
History is awash with such truths.
Burning at the stake was a traditional form of execution for women found guilty of witchcraft. It was considered true, right and fact that they were witches.
Galileo was sent to the inquisition for affirming that the Earth was a sphere, the government had declared it to be as flat as a trencher, and Galileo was obliged to abjure his error. This error however at length prevailed, the Earth became a globe.
Trump the Russian Conspirator, Operative, and Puppet which was pushed as fact by CNN, MSNBC and others: Russian President Vladimir Putin's greatest achievement was turning President Trump into a "Russian operative" decades after the fall of the Soviet Union, MSNBC host Lawrence O'Donnell argued on Thursday.
“The president is a Russian operative. That sounds like the description of a bad Hollywood screenplay, but it is real," he said on his show "The Last Word."
I was part of enough things "in the service of my country" to know that what you believe is fact, right and true... quite often isn't.
Therein lies the dilemma in trying to discern the truth of a matter, you have to use common sense, a healthy dose of skepticism and some investigative digging into opposing sources of information.
For the mind that dismisses conflicting sources of information, that clings to "official" as if it were a holy grail of truth, what sense is there debating a matter?
Do you come with an open mind, or are you here merely to correct what you consider mis-information with what you "know" to be true, right, and fact?Well quite literally the votes were counted. So you're saying this was another case of voter fraud but on the part of Democrats rigging primaries?
How do the people that control the DNC choose Biden? Are you saying that there is some underlying conspiracy that he really didn't win the number of primaries he was reported to? And in return fraudulently received the amount of delegates for that state? Are you trying to say the primaries are a sham somehow?
Again, where's FatFreddyCats to draw a line of laugh? And Ken, you're reminding me of something...Biden getting on that Air Force One jet plane...he's falling and rising, he's falling and rising, and again... Wait, I'm eating rice with meat stew. Oh pepper gone down my throat and I chukcle...and I just sip my tea it goes with my ricc. Again, this recalled the classic tale of thet spider and the cob web. He's falling and rising, and trying, he's falling and rising and trying. Oh poor Old Joe Biden! Let's make a jolly fellow out of him.
... uh, Let's not go slightly mad. Let's stay sane and replace this man, Joe Bidden, as soon as possible. We cannot keep going like this until 2024.
WE NEED A PRESIDENTYes, America needs a President. But she's got to wait until Biden's term is over. God save America!
I have a dreadful feeling it will be too late.
We need a president ASAP. That person is not one.
If we can prove to all, that the election was unfair ...
Sadly, I do believe there would be civil war.
It's weird, to me, how polarized we are.Well, I can feel that or sensed what you feel. Waiting till 2024 would be compounding America's present problems. But what's the constitutional move of the issue? Speaker Pelosi could not take a move to impeach her boy. If this were Trump...
Now mentioning Soylent Green, which is still a good movie to this day for a variety of reasons, doesn't really match the topic of the 80+ geriatric club we have running the nation, but I'll run with it...
Soylent Green certainly does hit close to home with what we see going on world wide today in regards to news promising food shortages and famine.
I recommend people read the official documentation of Agenda 21 and Agenda 2030, if you read these, you would be surprised to see how well it predicted a pandemic and lockdowns like we had in 2020&2021, as well as food shortages being talked about and promises of rampant famine worldwide to come.
On a side note, Biden is paying farmers not to farm... "the goal is to add 4 million acres of farmland to the Conservation Reserve Program, which takes land out of production to blunt agriculture's environmental impact."
An interesting time to be doing this, when we are supposed to be facing a famine. Bill Gates is also buying up hundreds of farms and doing the same thing. Interesting yes?
How about this, did you know they are finding bird flu breakouts all over the country, so far they have terminated over 17 million Chickens and Turkeys in an effort to "contain" the spread?
I don't think they will be any more successful containing it than they were Covid, but the prices of meat and eggs are sure to skyrocket, and chances of shortages are pretty good.
Soylent Green... interesting movie to mention, Cred.
I feel Congress needs to request Biden have a cognitive test. McCarthy is already giving warning signals that Biden can't do the job. He has recently pointed out he feels if Biden rescinds act 42.
"House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy blasted the Biden administration for the decision to lift a public health provision that allows migrants to be sent back across the Southern border.
McCarthy, the House minority leader, said Biden had “abdicated his responsibilities” at the Southern border by planning to end the provision, known as Title 42. The announcement to end the public health order is making the migrant crisis worse, he added.
“Today’s decision confirms that President Biden has abdicated his responsibilities at our borders and is actively working to make the border crisis worse,” McCarthy said in a statement Friday. “From day one of his administration, he has failed to protect our nation’s security and to secure the border.”
I remember Trump was asked to take a cognitive test and did it without making any fuss.
Time for Congress to step up and request he take a cognitive test.
Many Americans feel he is confused, his cognitive abilities need to be assessed.Taking this action would make a lot of sense.
Therefore it won't happen.
Don't you get it by now? Nothing is to make sense, done for good reason, or appear to be logical!
This would defeat the purpose ...
of what ....?
- we need to know.
Ken, thank you. And, you're great it seems with the classics.
Well, Ken,
At least the yuppies that live without Blacks in their communities support the larger cause, and that is better than voting against it. Blacks are less likely to have the jobs to support the mortgages paid By the yuppies, so I will take the minimum, at least they do not get into our way.
Your clearly have an agenda, and it is about much more than just rich oligarchs. I have defined what I consider CRT and what is not under a thread started by Kathryn Hill, regarding 1619. I would like you to read it and tell me what is an unreasonable interpretation to you. So, what spooks you about CRT?
Listening to you folks, that is why conservatives want to destroy the public education system in favor of "white only" academies. The foundation of systemically sanctioned unequal education opportunities will continue to be a source no-peace within our society.
Is having "common sense" only consistent with your world view?
Do you really think that we are so naive to think that Trump and the Republican agenda is of any real value regarding our objectives?
BTW, how did me manage to deviate so far from "World War 3"?My bad, I didn't mean for that (CRT & Gender) to be tossed into the mix in that way.
What I am saying is that there are rather privileged, well off, individuals that push their support for CRT & Gender issues in the schools... but their kids are not exposed to it.
I am not arguing for or against it, in the context of that post.
Just as when I stated " when you go into their neighborhoods you will be very hard pressed to find a person of color living amongst them."
I am not making an argument against any minority being in any neighborhood, what I am saying is what they preach, what they try to force on others, they make damned sure never reaches their kids or their neighborhoods.
But even that wasn't the point I was trying to get to.
What I was saying is they despise Trump voters, they despise them for trying to shake up the system, they despise them for complaining about their lot in life, they despise them for successfully getting Trump elected.
They don't say they have good points, won't consider that they are annoyed with a government that forces them to pay for not having insurance (until Trump changed that) while that same government supports all their good paying jobs going overseas.
I'm saying they hate them, all 75 million of them, and rather than consider their issues they simply label them as racists, sexists, and ignorant idiots that don't deserve to continue to exist on this earth.
Now, lets get back to WWIII. Apologies for getting so off track."What I am saying is that there are rather privileged, well off, individuals that push their support for CRT & Gender issues in the schools... but their kids are not exposed to it.
What? The "anti-racist baby book" that Ted Cruz promoted & paraded at the Judge Jackson confirmation hearing was used in one of the most expensive private schools in Georgetown... Where are the privilege and well off send their children. No worries though, public school children are still safe from CRTDuring a talk it's common to get off tangent or digress for for a while and pick on another topic that may bear relevance or throw search light on the topic. It's like to taking a week's break from the forum. That refresh, tone, and rejuvenate the mind. Then we revert to the topic before the diversion. Now guys, we're back, and we're on course.
is there such a big problem with good economic momentum?
He needs lessons in how to seem presidential. He has so many irksome, obnoxious personality traits. To understand Trump you have to go to the part of him which undertstands what the people need to survive in freedom and joy.
He was not racist. He was not white-supremacist.
He was a very large figure who unfortunately could not reign in his cavalier arrogance. Well, it might be hard to do when you have such an awesome understanding of the BIG ("huge"
) PICTURE.Trump was very frustrate I think from the drawing the past few Presidents had painted America. Or his 'America First' a change I liked that even covers his foreign policy received the applauses of Obama as 'great talk, great talt'. Yes, Trump was off tangent when he lands on the presidential scheme during and thereafter. You can't get a president that is so badly beaten on the head than Trump. But he sailed over all even the impeachments. Anyone that dislike Trump should begin to study his policies, and compare them with previous presidential policies.
Old age, demetia, and senile interrelated, and remind me of 'Wiston Churchhill is old. He's getting senile'. The sage was in control and retorted to thd unculturf youths: 'I'm not deaf'. As old age sets in, other complications comes along. With some persons they're definitely out of balance and realities from time to time. This calls for proffesimal health care. Again with some they's serious improvement...the others will go nuts because they believe its old age time has set in. Its hard to be reasonable and deal with the later group. So they relations just dump them io old age homes. But here we're talking about public office holders-technocrats. Critically, the law has compound the problem by letting men and women pass their 70's to hold such public post. Money, power, and influence will not allow the to end the shot or retire.
(The) Money, power, and influence (of the shadow government/deep state) will not allow theM to end THE SHOT (the job/position) or retire.
It's starting to occur to me that we need to bypass the shadow government/deep state forces.
or "ALLOW (force) THEM to retire!"Kathryn, that would be within the ambit of the law so to speak. Would it occur to the law makers to draft a legislature to the effect to limit the age of 60 as maximum to retire themselves? No! They likewise has a shot to the Senate or the Presidency. To these men, what's good for the goose goes for the g***d**. It's hard will be done...and, what's your take?
Thank you. And you hit the nail right. That's where the problem of gerontology ruling continue to occur.
We also need to Pay attention to OUR BORDER.
Not Ukraine.
WWIII stared long ago and Biden as president is proof, if you ask me, which no one ....My Kathryn, that's your opinion. Poor old Biden again? I'm asking we make a jolly fellow out of him!
Good night and sweet dream. Till the morning then.You usually make sense. I'm starting to wonder. There is nothing jolly about Biden. Only tragedy, misery and failure.
Okay. Apart from his minus side, all that I'm sayying is that we make something good out of the old man? Does that still makes you wonder?
It's interesting to note all these.
Men that we think are philanthropists can be really wicked at times, just to promoted their own personal interests.
They don't care if the world contain only one million persons. But the foolish part of them is that they don't even know who's going to buy their products anyway?
It may be that they mindset is to depopulated the world. Are these men religious? A very religious mind will welcome billions of babes into this world yearly! That's the Creator, God's mindset.
Unfortunately, the 'Bill Gate's' don't know all this. Heavens have mercy on them.
Birth control, population control are good policies. But the attempt to kill either by hunger or starvation is an evil program. Biden, I'm sure is now in the camp of Bill Gate.
God created the world and man. His aim is for the first ever parents Adam and Eve to 'replemish and fill the earth'. Have any ever noted that the Earth was formerly peopled by some pre-Adamic creatures more or less like human beings?
That's the paradox. God the Creator is still in charge of the world's massive population of over 7.5 billion people.
The earth has not contained enough people. Food shortage's not a question in the Creator's mind. It's created by man's unsound policy as can be seen from what Bill Gate's doing and what Old Joe Biden doing.
The Earth still has more virgin forests or ush lands that can be used for food production. It's a design by the Creator. Man can't beat that.
Thanks Ken, for informing. All these deeds are well known but majority like to keep sullen.'At this point, we wait and hope he just accepts he lost this war. Not sure how he would accept being charged with war crimes. This could send him over the edge.'
There no doubt that Vladimir Putin has lost his war in Ukraine. All signs points to his defeat.
Did Sadam Husein accepted his defeat and accusation of war crimes? No dictator the world over will like to do that. He question the Jury whether they know it's the President of Iran they're judging? He did not acknowledged the court.
But the thing is that he must be punish for his war in Ukraine and face the consequence of war crimes. This done, it's unlikely that another dictator will like to invade another smaller nation like Iceland, that has no standing army.
The United Nation security Council has a vital role to play in this. But I'm not sure how it would go about the business.An interesting article giving support to some of the theories presented in this forum while opening doors to new thoughts. It is a Newsweek article quoting a Russian Ambassador to the U.S., Anatoly Antonov giving reasons why the conflict started and how it could end.
Russia's Ambassador to U.S. Reveals Why Ukraine War Began, How It Could End by Newsweek (04/08/22)
https://www.newsweek.com/russias-ambass … e5a1156f17Why??
"63 Republicans vote against House resolution affirming support for NATO and its 'democratic principles'
Weakening or destroying NATO is believed to be one of Putin's top goals.
Some also say perhaps this divisiveness in the U.S. government remains one of Putin's strategic goals that hasn't yet been defeated.
To continue the ride on the hypocrisy train. This is worth a watch.
https://youtu.be/AjwLwEbYgccIt's obvious by the responses on this thread that nobody has had to work with NATO. To be kind, the organization needs work.
I worked with NATO when I was in the military.
Let me paint a picture for you. Picture a government works site with seven guys doing a job. Two are talking, one is eating and drinking, the other two are reading a newspaper. Two of the workers are actually doing the work. One is bigger and stronger and able to do more work than the other.
THAT is NATO.
The US and Britian ended up doing all the heavy lifting and difficult work. The others required quite a bit of negotiations to do any little thing to the task at hand.
I could go on and on and on. I counted the seconds until that assignment was over. NATO member nations don't pay what they have agreed to pay for the defense of their nation. You would be shocked if you saw how little Germany pays for their troop's equipment and how outdated much of their equipment is...even on the front-line troops. One of the reasons the German economy is so large is because they spend so little on their military. They don't even try to meet their spending obligations under NATO.
Many NATO member nations ask why should they pay for military when the US won't make a fuss about it? Why not just spend on their country's own economy? Why do what they agreed to do if they don't have to?
So, I have my doubts about the western European NATO members ability to fight anything. I bet they'd just let the Brits do everything until the fight came directly to their country.
THAT is the reality of NATO from someone who has experienced it.
I think things may changes with NATO. I believe the war in Ukraine probably woke them up to the reality of Russia and the threats they face.Mike, I have no personal experience with NATO, but this is how I have often heard it described.
I too believe, reality has set in and it is ALL hands on deck for NATO, but look what it took!!
Republicans voted against an empty resolution affirming support for NATO.
Given an equally empty sign that the US will no longer be the "sugardaddy" of the organization, that all NATO members must participate as agreed in providing the resources NATO needs.
How is that weakening or destroying NATO? I would say it is a step, a big one, in the direction of strengthening it.all NATO members must participate as agreed in providing the resources NATO needs.
How aren't they?Each member nation in NATO is required to put 2 percent of their GDP toward their defense budget. MOST NATO nations don't.
Here is a list from February of this year of the nations that don't do this. Do you realize how rich countries like Germany and Canada are compared to some of the smaller nations who DO put 2 percent of their GDP towards defense? The countries who don't do this need to step up and meet their obligations.
https://www.forces.net/news/world/nato- … re-defenceThey're not required. The current agreed target for European Nato members is 2% of GDP on defence by 2024. it's a goal/target.
The data shows the United States has fallen behind Greece in proportional spending, contributing 3.52% of GDP compared to Greece's 3.82%.
Croatia is in third place with 2.79%, while Estonia (2.28%), Latvia (2.27%), Poland (2.1%), Lithuania (2.03%), Romania (2.02%) and France (2.01%) also make up the 10 nations meeting NATO's proportional 2% target.
https://www.forces.net/news/world/nato- … re-defenceOh, they certainly are required to spend 2 percent of their GDP on their military.
FYI...the US has THE largest military budget in the world. The US spending on its military is second to none.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features … visualizedThis is directly from NATO:
"NATO Leaders agreed to reverse the trend of declining defence budgets and decided:
Allies currently meeting the 2% GUIDELINE on defence spending will aim to continue to do so;
Allies whose current proportion of GDP spent on defence is below this level will: halt any decline; aim to increase defence expenditure in real terms as GDP grows; and aim to move towards the 2% GUIDELINE within a decade with a view to meeting their NATO Capability Targets and filling NATO’s capability shortfalls.
While the 2% of GDP guideline alone is no guarantee that money will be spent in the most effective and efficient way to acquire and deploy modern capabilities, it remains, nonetheless, an important indicator of the political resolve of individual Allies to devote to defence a relatively small but still significant level of resources. In 2014, three Allies spent 2% of GDP or more on defence; this went up to eight Allies in 2021. Moreover, 2021 was the seventh consecutive year of rising defence spending across European Allies and Canada, amounting to a rise of 3.1% in real terms compared to 2020.
The Defence Investment Pledge endorsed in 2014 calls for Allies to meet the 2% of GDP GUIDELINE for defence spending and the 20% of annual defence expenditure on major new equipment by 2024. Since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, a majority of Allies have committed to investing more, and more quickly, in defence."
Here is a chart of military spending as a percentage of GDP
https://www.statista.com/statistics/266 … countries/
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_67655.htmUnfortunately, 8 years after the agreement there are only 3 countries out of 30 members meeting that 2%. I suspect that all three were always doing it: the US, the UK and France.
A picture is worth a thousand words
So wonderful to see Prime Minister Johnson walking in the streets of Kyiv with President Zelienskyy... So, why isn't Biden going to show America's support for Ukraine? At one time our presidents were known to be" the leaders of the free world". Not so much anymore. This raises a good question, why isn't Biden visiting Kyiv? Oh forgot --- He said "they won't let me"... Oh well.
Who the hell are they? IMO, Biden has made a mockery of America, and what we once stood for.Sad to have to agree Sharlee! But that is how much people have been taught to hate Trump and to hate America! They don't care that we have been made a mockery of and they don't care that Johnson is standing where an American President should be standing. They being the leftist Woke and establishment types who only care about lining their own pockets.
My friend, we will save America. We have had a hiccup. But, one thing about most Americans's that we rally when we see things going so badly, and we come out strong and vote a new bunch in. Hopefully, the new bunch will realize many of us are done with the old ways of Washington.
The new administration is clearly in my view making every attempt to tear the very fabric of America into pieces. They are actually flaunting what they feel is their newfound power. And have well realized they can do nothing, and get away with it.
They can hide a candidate in a basement and have him win, just by making them hate -- they lead them around by the noses and dictate their every thought.
They can ruin a good economy, and just tell them to buck up, and
shut up.
They can do the unthinkable and pull out of a war, and leave Americans to fend for themselves in a war-torn country. And the liberals make excuses and justify this crime for them.
They can lead an elderly man around and just tell him what to say. A man that admits there are "Theys" that tell him what to do.
They can open our borders to anyone that wants to walk across them and claim asylum. All while ignoring the rise in the number of killer drugs pouring in. They can even have free needles and places set up to shoot up with those free needles. They can watch as people live in our streets and walk over them... All about power.
They push IMO gender possibilities to kids that are not old enough to even know about gender or care if they are male or female, they are just kids.
They push a "new green deal" stopping America's energy initiatives to be energy independent but importing our energy from other countries. Last I knew we have one atmosphere to pollute in one area of the world is pollute that one atmospher. They hope all will buy solar panels and electric cars... Have these ass Clowns checked out the price to convert to an electric car or solar power? Have they really checked the percentage of Americans that could not pay their gas or electric bills this past winter?
I could go on and on with this left ideological drivel. Because at this point in our history, in my view, that's what it is pure nonsense, unrealistic crap.
In reality, after thinking about it, "they should keep Joe in his bunker. There would be a very good chance he would embarrass us with words that are inappropriate, and non-sensical.People have been taught to hate Trump and their country? Excuse me? Do you ever try and see different perspectives on a situation? Different views of a situation? Why do you have to automatically almost always make it a divisive issue. Turn it into something that is "us vs. them" It's just so counterproductive
I would say with confidence at this point in this country it is very close to us vs. them. I think we would be fooling ourselves not to start facing that sentiment.
The divide in America is based on ideologies. The country could not be more sploit and dug in.
AB shared her view. " People have been taught to hate Trump and their country? Excuse me? " This is many American's perspectives. We have a right to share it, we have a right to believe it.
She did not make it divisive, she shared her view --- It was you admonishing her and calling her view divisive.
It is you that is not seeing her seeing that she has a different perspective than you, and she has a right to share it.
Nothing will be productive when ideologies are so different. It would mean one would need to give up their beliefs. Do you want to give up what you feel, and believe? I know I don't... And neither does AB.
I agree with AB some have been taught and schooled to hate Trump and to hate America. I feel the media and the Democrats are guilty of this.
No one could persuade me otherwise. I have had a front-row seat and watched this happen."ideologies" Have always been different. People have always held differing views and opinions on issues throughout the nation Honestly at this point in time it's a doubtful that most people could accurately identify political ideologies.
Regardless, people need to coexist and compromise. It's not about giving up your beliefs. Many, many people don't share my religious beliefs. So where does that leave me? Lashing out, continually name calling and putting down others who aren't as wise as me because they don't follow my religion?
The over generalizing that is done here and the constant labeling of people into groups is demeaning and short-sighted.
Always calling people These derogatory names is really pointless. It doesn't advance conversation whatsoever. A "lib" a "leftist" "woke" or whatever label you want to slap It's pointless to real conversation. I find that some people here fall back on this labeling rather than making a factually based argument for whatever their opinion may be.
The constant use of these terms and the endless "othering" gets us no where.
People are different. We can use our differences as an opportunity to share and learn or we can use our differences as an excuse to build walls between us.
You know there are a lot of shortsighted people. Rather than trying to understand someone or their point of view they just want to slap a label on them, name call and only support the people who line up behind the same regime as they do.
I'm not interested in labeling large groups of people. I'm not interested in assuming large groups of people are all homogeneous. The demonizing is just so toxic. If this is someone's "perspective" I don't find it very helpful.
When destroying the "other side" becomes the ultimate goal. This is how democracies fall apart.
The thing is, I can consider anyone's political views or opinions. I don't take them as a personal assault like so many do. A political party or ideology is not my identity. And That's saying a lot because I grew up on a homestead."ideologies" Have always been different. People have always held differing views and opinions on issues throughout the nation Honestly at this point in time it's doubtful that most people could accurately identify political ideologies."
I disagree wholeheartedly. As an individual, I could point out my ideologies, without any problem. I believe most could.
"Regardless, people need to coexist and compromise. It's not about giving up your beliefs. Many, many people don't share my religious beliefs. So where does that leave me? Lashing out, continually name-calling, and putting down others who aren't as wise as me because they don't follow my religion? "
We have politicians at Local as well as Federal disregarding what I feel children should be exposed to in public schools. I WON'T COMPROMISE ON VALUES. I don't compromise on morals, values, or my religion period. I don't care what party is making the rules. I will buck them adamantly. I won't warm up to changing my values or morals for a political
party period.
"The over generalizing that is done here and the constant labeling of people into groups is demeaning and short-sighted.
Always calling people These derogatory names is really pointless. It doesn't advance conversation whatsoever. A "lib" a "leftist" "woke" or whatever label you want to slap It's pointless to real conversation. I find that some people here fall back on this labeling rather than making a factually based argument for whatever their opinion may be.
The constant use of these terms and the endless "othering" gets us no where. "
The word "woke" is just a word, a word that some on the left coined to express their ideologies. IMO, It should not be off-limits nor should other words that express a political party, and its given ideologies. (This is a political forum) You need to respect we have two dominant political parties. Both have gleaned tags we may not appreciate. Such as RINO, Trumpster, lib, and liberal seem mild to what many Republicans have been called here. You do realize the country is split? You may want to realize neither side will give an inch.
"People are different. We can use our differences as an opportunity to share and learn or we can use our differences as an excuse to build walls between us."
The walls are there at this point, and many are not willing to tear them down. The differences have grown like weeds, weeds that at this point are trying to crowd out our American values. Many Americans have at this point said --- stop we are not willing to change what we love about our country our values, and our very morals.
"I'm not interested in labeling large groups of people. I'm not interested in assuming large groups of people are all homogeneous"
In my view, you present one side of the coin, the liberal side. You go to great length to present that very side. Perhaps you just don't recognize this? Yes, what you have shared sounds very rosy. But,
it is not realistic.
"The thing is, I can consider anyone's political views or opinions. I don't take them as a personal assault like so many do"
Yes, it seems you do. But you come back with liberal views, you go to great lengths to present a very liberal view. You do it very respectfully, and this is wonderful. It does set a stage for learning and in some cases compromise."In my view, you present one side of the coin, the liberal side. You go to great length to present that very side.
And what's wrong with that? Yes, I do present one side of the coin and that's mine. I don't start with an "ideology" I don't begin from a political position. I don't consider politics my identity.
I look for facts. The complete picture. The history of any issue I may be interested in here. Sometimes forum poster's present statements out of context, statements in isolation, misunderstandings of statements and over simplifications that ignore historical and confounding variables. I'll follow this wherever it leads. I don't feel like I have to twist myself into a pretzel to represent a party line. The conclusions I make for myself probably more than not end up being on the "liberal" spectrum. And I always consider it a spectrum representing various a continuum from the far left to the dead center. That's were my common sense analysis takes me.
I can listen to a well thought out "conservative" argument any day. It doesn't offend me personally. But as with any argument I'm going to look at the premise and the fallacies. I'm not just searching for a "liberal" argument to come back with. It's interesting that you appear to have summed me up in total to check me off as either a liberal or a conservative. I wish we could all view each other as more than that.
"You may want to realize neither side will give an inch"
That's okay, I can give several inches. I'm a little more optimistic in people coming together. But for those who want to dig and only see the good in their "side" I suppose that is their right but it doesn't help advance peace or prosperity for anyone.
My strongest "expertise" in life has been education. If you have any concern with what politicians are telling you is happening within your local schools. Please head over to your nearest school and request a meeting with the principal. I guarantee that he or she would make more than adequate time to discuss your concerns and what actually is taught in the classroom. Politicians have no business in the classroom.Well, it is not that I did not tell you long ago, that your neutral, non partisan stance would eventually be seen in this light....
"In my view, you present one side of the coin, the liberal side. You go to great length to present that very side. Perhaps you just don't recognize this? Yes, what you have shared sounds very rosy."" I don't feel like I have to twist myself into a pretzel to represent a party line."
I do represent a party, a party that represents my values, my ideologies. I feel the Democratic party is ripping America apart to suit their own far-left agenda. Government overreach is not attractive to me. I am in no respect on board with the current administration's very liberal agenda.
At this point, I do feel my political representatives have a place in education. I feel we need safeguards to ensure parents have a voice in what their children are being taught.Parents do and have always had input on there child's curriculum. It is always decided with parental input. Whenever a district adopts a new curriculum there are meetings after meetings that detail the textbooks being chosen for every subject area and the basis of that choice. A new curriculum adoption can take a year to pass. Sadly, over my 25 years I've seen VERY few parents attend curricular adoption board meetings to give input. Most show very little interest. Do you know why? The great majority of parents actually trust their school teachers and administrators. So I find it little more than cheap political scare tactics used by some to strike fear in generally uninvolved parents . I can say with a great deal of confidence the teachers don't have an agenda to push on students. But if you're coming from this perspective then should "liberal" parents be just as concerned that ultra conservative ideals are being brought into the classroom? Are teachers with agendas targeting liberal children? Trying to change ideas they may find offensive? Or are all teachers just assumed to be liberal? All of this is just really nonsense. I've asked previously for anyone here to provide information of a specific school district that has adopted any of this nonsense about changing gender or CRT. A specific book, materials, and it should be listed in the district website as is all curriculum. I have yet to see such material. There are plenty of folks here who live in school districts. I've asked people to check their districts for such material. Nothing has been provided. These aren't "safeguards" these are useless measures that hang over and hinder a teacher who now has to work in some of these districts with the threat of being sued? A teacher who has to teach carefully watching his or her own words? This is not helpful. It really harms students the most. If parents don't trust the highly experienced and educated teachers employed by their districts they should look into private education. Also, There has been no real discussion of the actual students. Do parents or people in the public in general think that students file into their classrooms as blank slates? With nothing to add from their personal experience, their home experience? Oh no, students have lots to say. There needs to be a realistic way with a dealing with this other than a teacher just muzzling them for fear of being sued.
Has anyone really been interested in education? How to actually improve education in this country so that our students can compete in the areas of science and math? No not really, more are interested in being outraged over nonsense rather than realizing our nation students are falling behind in important areas. But hey I guess McDonald's is always a good job. Where's the outrage over that??There isn't any evidence, it is just as you say.
Parents have been politicized to believe that burning books and muzzling teachers from teaching accuracy over propaganda is now their prerogative.
Images from the darkest periods of the great tyrannies of the past.Faye, I must say, you have made some very good points. The media is doing a good job at stirring up parents in regard to CTR and gender teaching.
We have politicians at Local as well as Federal disregarding what I feel children should be exposed to in public schools. I WON'T COMPROMISE ON VALUES. I don't compromise on morals, values, or my religion period. I don't care what party is making the rules. I will buck them adamantly. I won't warm up to changing my values or morals for a political Party
--------
Why then should anyone else, if you don't consider compromise?To be soberingly honest in regards to morals and values, I don't care about what anyone else does at this point. I am firmly planted on keeping my own strong and well-protected. I won't impede on anyone else's, but don't think I will settle for compromise on my morals or values.
The woke have labeled themselves, I didn't come up with it. It is much too kind for those seeking to take down a Country that YES they have been fed lies about and have been taught to hate. That's a fact!
I am not about promoting political parties, never have been. I am fed up with them both. I want capable, competent, conservative, defenders of liberty and freedom in office. That's not asking for a lot. If that seems "divisive" to you, so be it!AB, Yes the leftist did coin the term "woke". And it is odd that they would use that word. Because in my view they are anything but aware of anything but what they are being fed. It is also clear there is a faction of the Democratic party that does hope to ripe down America. They hope to crush our very values and remove our individual freedom. (again my view). I would agree their ideologies are rooted in hate, due to their naivety to buy into the propaganda that feels right to them.
The problem with not supporting a political party is that in reality, we have two... One is less strewn with ideologies that don't fit what we have valued, and appreciated about America.
I will continue to support the Republican party due to it being the closest party that represents my conservative ideologies. The party is far from my ideal, but the Democratic party in my view is not tolerable.The question I have to ask, Sharlee, is what are YOU being fed?
We both know that our values as to what America is or can be are different and to say that the left/Democrats are committed to its destruction is disingenuous.You shared your thoughts, and I do know you adamantly believe in every word.
You may see my thoughts as disingenuous, I do not. It always strikes me that some can in no respect understand we all have an innate right to our thoughts, our views. Yet many just can't accept this.
The difference between us is I will not point the finger at you and say your belief or views are disingenuous. I can understand that thoughts are individual, and the owner need not be "canceled out". It would seem those that cancel others' views are being very unfair, and in my view, close-minded.
In my view, as I said in my comment, keep in mind the context
matters --- " It is also clear there is a faction of the Democratic party that does hope to ripe down America. They hope to crush our very values and remove our individual freedom. (again my view). "
So, did I say -- "that the left/Democrats are committed to its destruction" ?
I left the room to respect individuality.
This is my honest view, I truely feel some ( a faction) are hell-bent on running America as we know it. does my statement go to condemn all Democrats?
I hit a nerve ... That is clear.
To answer your question. The media deeds up feed to both sides. One only needs to be aware, that it may taste sweet, but is it pure sugar or the fake stuff sweet and low? I try to look at media with wide-open eyes, and if it is an important story, I dig deep, I look for words like alledged, I think, perhaps, what if. I have learned to look for what came before and after statements. Much of the time media misrepresents what they are reporting, and twists it into the narrative they hope will stick.of course you have a right to your innate thoughts and views. I guess that is what we do in this forum, discuss the whys and wherefores.
Your point is well taken regarding our views, it is just that the positions that you and so many right leaning posters present are so hard to understand. But, I should not out of hand dismiss them because they do not make sense to me. I will try to take note of that in the future.
My view is that there is a faction of the Republican Party and its previous leader that seeks to undermine the democratic process as prescribed in the Constitution. But, I should qualify my statements as to not include all Republicans, but so far, only the RINOs appear to be the exception in Congress. There are not too many of those. I simply don't abide with "breaking the rules".
My idea of a "strong leader" is one that stays within the Constitutionally prescribed guardrails, and moves others to action through his example and his ardent abilities of public persuasion, not through authoritarianism and strong arm tactics.
Even regarding the media, we could be looking at the same dress, you say that it is red, while I see blue.
I appreciate where you are coming from Sharlee. I am a registered Republican. I registered as soon as it was legal for me to do so and cast my very first vote for Ronald Reagan. I have been hoping and praying for another RR ever since. Trump came close, just lacking in polish
. I am not giving up on the Republican Party, it just needs a good cleaning up/clearing out, so that they can get back to the basics; the business of we the people.I think we need to keep the faith, I am confident we will have a good candidate that will incorporate much of Trump's "Make America Great" agenda. I feel the majority of Republican's appreciated Trump's agenda, and would not hope to go backward in regards to what he had accomplished, and perhaps would have accomplished. I feel if we sweep in the fall, we can prevent this administration from doing much more damage, and repair when we win the White House back.
IMO in it is not about ideologies. It is about Greed. Simple enough.
People try and present ideology as though it's ingrained in stone and can't be fluid or all-encompassing. I think that flies in the face of human nature. We're not all ideologues.
There was nothing us vs. them about it.
People WERE taught to hate Trump, that is what calling him a traitor to the nation, a Putin puppet, a conspirator, and trying to impeach him twice does, it teaches people to hate.
Trump was a dislikable person for many, they magnified his flaws tenfold and added plenty of fabricated nonsense on top of it.Yes, There was and there is. It's constant. There are definitely folks on this forum and of course many others that continue to use derogatory, stereotypical labels to make negative assumptions on very large diverse groups of people. Come on now, we've all read it over and over.
People are certainly welcome to their opinions and they make them for the most part with abandon and generally without any factual foundation. Essentially an opinion is given and some negative labeling thrown in for good measure. I can get past that but If our country is ever going to bridge the divisiveness that's been sown, we need to stop mass generalizations of political groups.
I, for one am tired of being pegged "socialist" "leftist" a "lib"
The political stereotypes are not helpful and obviously do not represent such large groups.
Try and understand and individual before you slap a label on them and put them in a box. I was raised in the strictest of libertarian values on a homestead in southern Missouri. Can I have conservative views? Absolutely. Can I have "leftist" views? You bet. People are complex. All of those complexities are lost or even undermined when you're labeled. Most of us can maintain contradictory views and not see it as some sort of fault. Go ahead and be "all or nothing" If that suits you but certainly don't assume everyone else comes from that perspective. And I'm saying this in general here not just directed toward yourself.
If you've already labeled an entire group and you feel you know all of their views then why even bother to converse??I think the name calling is on all fronts.
However.
Being called a lib or socialist does not carry the harm and discrediting effect that calling a person a racist, sexist, bigot, etc. does.
The "Left" has worked tirelessly to tie racism, sexism, warmongering to Republicans, and Conservatives.
When someone, for example Credence, uses the word Conservative, it carries the connotation of Racist, Trump supporter, etc. Without saying those exact words.
The Democratic wing of our politics and our media does so because they are constantly selling the American people things that are not going to be popular.
Cutting Carbon emissions will cost people money, at the pump, at the home, these efforts no matter how well disguised will be unpopular with the majority... as is a "tax" on people for not having insurance... as is threatening to take away people's rights to own weapons, people who own them have already made up their minds on the matter and don't want any new infringements placed upon them. Etc. Etc.Let me count the ways ... I have been called a racist, sexist, bigot, terrorist, nazi, trader, liar, my age was referred to, my blonde hair was referred to, I was called a foreigner, and long ago I was called a boy trying to troll as a woman, an insurrectionist, and of committing treason.
And some hear can't take being called a liberal, a Democrat, a leftist. I can't be more disgusted, but I am laughing. These forums can be rough, but HP's political forum is more of a polite chat, much of the time.
I suggest anyone that does not like labels, stop using labels or be very careful how they are used.Being called a lib or socialist does not carry the harm and discrediting effect that calling a person a racist, sexist, bigot, etc. does.
----
That is because those derogatory characteristics have not been features of behavior by the left and socialists.
It turns out that most conservatives are Trump Supporters or supporters of his ideological base. Even if Trump can be defined as not racist, he is race baiter, using the figurative time honored mallet on the patella to elicit a well anticipated response. And boy, what a response, 70 million votes.
On the contrary, it is the Republicans and their policies that are not popular, that is why they have so many elaborate plans to muzzle the voices of those who generally do not support them.
I have never seen Democrats having to stoop this low to intimidate voters....
https://www.fox21news.com/newsfeed-now/ … -colorado/That link is an example of some stupid people doing something entirely ignorant, it is not on the level of impact that MSM messaging is, or that repeated efforts by Democrat politicians to paint all Republicans or Trump supporters as racist, sexist, etc.
One is condoned and challenged immediately in court while the other is accepted and unchallenged by and large.
The point is in regards to "name calling" and the separation of "sides".
If I call you a Lefty, or a Lib, that merely states a political bias and does not carry much more to it.
If I call you a Conservative, or a Trumpster, that implies everything from being a "deplorable" to being a "racist" because, simply put, that is what the messaging across the board... from Facebook bannings to MSM messaging has all but stated is matter-of-fact.Where does the impetus for the dumb things come from and why are Democrats not engaged in it?
I have been referred to as a Marxist, Communist, all having negative connotations in the American mindset.
I know that am not one of those, so I am not offended.
Unfortunately, Trumpism and conservatism are intertwined, in today's environment. Trump has represented much of those negatives for many of us.Oh I would imagine they are up to some dumb things as well, Democrats that is.
But it isn't as well covered in the news.
I can remember back in 2016 a County near to my own had Democrats in a back room where they were supposed to be counting ballots, filling out blanks, adding them to the count, it was caught on camera (someone's cell phone) and the story had legs locally for a day or two, then went away.
I am sure you could find plenty of things Democrats do wrong if you went digging for them, but you don't go looking to confirm your biases against Democrats, you go looking for dirt on Republicans, so that is what you find.
These labels many times carry intent to disparage and disrespect another individual.
"othering" or labeling people comveys the idea they are so different from us that they’re almost incomprehensible. Then it moves to
aversion, this idea that they’re not just different, but they’re dislikable. The third part is this“moralization", where they’re deemed morally bankrupt.
The debate going on is increasingly divorced from ideas or platform. One of the things that people on the right love about Donald Trump is that he “owns the libs.” That is very, very satisfying to many. That’s not about ideas. That’s about conquest. That’s about defeating the bad people on the other side. These identities are becoming increasingly central to who we are as people. And it's been incredibly stoked by media that is designed to keep viewers locked in news bubbles that feed them highly curated content.
but in this highly polarized political ecosystem, we can see that politicians are losing the incentive to be responsive to the entire populace. And they also are losing the incentive to compromise, because you’re much more likely to get accused of lack of sufficient purity by your side. So you get this increasing emphasis on the most extreme candidates. This has been more true on the right than on the left, but to some degree, it has been true on both sides.
We've always had a degree of polarization or partisanship but the Trump presidency brought it to a new level.
He really rejected the honorable American presidential tradition of seeking unity and instead indulged in the politics of division, willfully alienating a large segment of the Americans while among his own supporters drumming up hatred for and suspicion of others.I think your perception has been skewed by the very media biases you note in this post.
First you say more extreme politicians come from the Right.
How about some examples, and then I will counter yours with examples from the Left which are aplenty.
As for Trump being an extremist?
Show me what you feel was extremist in his acts as President.... His actions ... not what opposition and MSM accused or slandered.
Trump was moderate in many ways, if you look at the actions, not the words.
As you say ... It's about dehumanizing the opposition, Trump was dehumanized in the extreme, he became a Boogeyman that the Left still use daily in MSM to scare those in their bubble with.Extremist to the Right? Greene, Gosar, Gaetz, Cawthorn, Boebert, Cruz, Hawley, Johnson. . The ones who previously called them themselves the America First caucus, based upon "Anglo-Saxon political traditions" I think they've since changed their name to the Freedom Caucus?
The Republican party seems to tolerate such extremists in an attempt to appease the fringe.
Some have received a good talking to by Leader McCarthy for their buddying up to Neo-Nazis and white supremacists but nothing more.
Republicans are currently all in on smearing anyone who disagrees with their assault on LGBTQ rights as “groomers” and declaring any progressive social position adjacent to pedophilia.
Republicans appear to be willing to embrace political extremism. Greene and others central message is fully in line with what has become dogma on the right: that Democrats are a radical, “Un-American” threat, and have to be stopped by whatever means. Everyone suspected of holding liberal or progressive positions is a “fellow traveler with the radical left,” as senator Ted Cruz put it; as part of the “militant left,” Democrats need to be treated as the “the enemy within,” according to senator Rick Scott; and Florida governor Ron DeSantis declared that Stacey Abrams winning the Georgia gubernatorial election would be akin to a foreign adversary taking over and lead to a “cold war” between the two neighboring states.
Is this really helpful? It sounds like it's leading to a dangerous end.
The truth of conservative politics today seems to be, that Democrats are a fundamental threat to the country, to its moral foundations, its very survival.
That’s how they are giving themselves permission to embrace whatever radical measures are deemed necessary to defeat this “Un-American” enemy. Once you have convinced yourself you are fighting a noble war against a bunch of pedophiles hellbent on destroying the nation, there are no more lines you’re not justified to cross.
Every “Western” society has always harbored some far-right extremists like Greene. But the fact that the Republican party embraces and elevates people like her constitutes an acute danger to democracy.
I didn't make the argument that Mr Trump himself was an extremist but he did in my view transform the GOP into a more radicalized party that rewards extremism, and punishes, or even banishes, those members who fail to support ever more audacious attacks on democracy and the nation’s electoral process.
Although he did make these comments at a recent rally about CRT. Which of course, Have absolutely no empirical basis.
"The fate of any nation ultimately depends upon the willingness of its citizens to lay down, and they must do this, lay down their very lives to defend their country,"
If we allow the Marxists, and communists, and socialists to hate America, there will be no one left to defend our flag or to protect our great country or its freedom,"
He called on his supporters to "lay down their very lives" to fight against Critical Race Theory.
I find this incredibly irresponsible. Should teachers take up arms now and fear of misinformed parents?
Instead of simply walking into their child's school building and requesting a meeting with the teacher or administrators we have a man encouraging them to lay down their lives for CRT? Sort of the same message as January 6th, "fight like hell".
This is pouring gas on an open flame.Such a red meat comment, and a fair one too. But, even as I agree with your thoughts, I think it is the Democrats' fault, for pushing too much change, too hard, and too fast, that the Republican party has become so extreme.
Just speculating, and shooting from the hip, I don't think the Democrats understand how Republican conservatives see their, (the Dems), agenda of pushing for social evolution, (to them it is a revolution),. I don't think the Democrats understand that their proposed changes aren't seen as progress by conservatives, they are seen as turning their lives upside down and inside out.
Republican conservatives don't see themselves as resisting `good' progress, to them the Democrat movement, (sine Pres. Obama's time, (ie. the national bathroom debate), through Pres. Trump's time, (the rioting, BLM, LGBTQ, et al, and of course Pres. Trump's personal behavior), isn't seen as changes of progress but as actions that crush their lives and beliefs. I think the point is easily illustrated with a simple starting point: the "liberals" demand that biology doesn't determine sex." I'm not entering that debate, but, it is not smart to ignore how foundational that starting point is for some, ([C]conservatives and Republican conservatives). Progress demands persuasion, if you, (generic, of course), can't even find a basic fundamental starting point there is no chance for any persuasion, (progress), whether pro or con, to succeed.
And we aren't talking about silly stuff either, like which bathroom should your 6 or 16-year-old kid use, nope, we talking about pillars of life beliefs—vagina vs. penis, and government school indoctrination vs. `the three R's'.
*Before anyone jumps, those examples were only the carriers of the message, not the message. The same for my generous use of labels as just shorthand generalizations always qualified by "most."
These times and issues aren't new, (as societal upheavals go), but they are unique in their attack on such core values. And, if you look at the individual examples mentioned, I think there is support for a conservative thought of, "Geez, give em' and inch and they will take a mile."
Put all that together and it is easy, for me, to see why Republican conservatives are fighting back from the corner, why beliefs are more strongly defended and the more zealous become more extreme.
That's why your list of Rightwing Republican extremists, (yep, most are beyond just "right") is hard to defend. For Republican politicians it is easy to stoke their constituency on such core values, so they do, and they're good at it. As for citizen conservatives, they are hearing voices that speak to their real fears.
Time to stop, just a little afternoon rambling. The Republican conservatives might be going over the top, (or sliding to the bottom), but I think it is the Democrat liberals that have pushed them, or pulled them, there.
GA"I think it is the Democrats' fault, for pushing too much change, too hard, and too fast, that the Republican party has become so extreme.
I could agree with this as an explanation if I actually saw the changes. What changes are we talking about? Or are you speaking more in general of the idea that issues of race, biology and so forth can be viewed in alternate ways by different groups? And that has been threatening to some?
I'm not sure if much has really changed. In my opinion, it feels more like fear-mongering off of the possibility that things could change. Most of them very unrealistic scenarios in my view. Such as teachers counseling kindergarteners on gender identity. And pretending like most teachers have that secret agenda on top of it.
Is the move toward extremism based on reality or a purposefully created perception of change?
In my opinion, the Republican Party has significantly intensified its dogmatism, deepened its conspiratorial mindset and continues to push traditional conservatives out of party leadership, and possibly out of its ranks altogether.
Political parties often embrace dubious narratives to condemn their opponents. But it's usually leavened by some kind of policy agenda. At present, Republicans simply don't have one, other than continued fealty to Mr Trump as a symbol and these culture wars.
Rather than drifting back towards anything resembling traditional conservatism, despite the virtual disappearance of Mr Trump, the Republican Party (IMO) is becoming more radical and conspiratorial and less rational or tethered to reality.Most conservatives are probably relieved that there aren't any concrete changes for you to see. It is the probability of those changes they are fighting. And yes, my examples were intended to be generalities, not item-specific.
Fear-mongering is the primary tool, but even that wouldn't work if there weren't some kernel of sincerely held real fear. Insisting a boy is a girl, and, teaching your young kids that is a real and easily rationalized fear for most conservatives.
I think your question with "viewed in alternate ways by different groups", is to my points. For many folks, there is no alternative view of a biological boy. Rational folks with that view may accept the gender identity issues, and still legitimately stick to their penis and vagina definition.
I remember when Conway, (and those that listen to her), was crucified for inferring that there were valid `alternate' facts. What should be thought of one that says the truth of biological boy/girl definitions has "alternate" views?
As for your criticisms of the extremism of the Republican party, I got nothing, but I bet those of that measure would say desperate actions for desperate times.
GASuch as teachers counseling kindergarteners on gender identity.
https://timcast.com/news/boston-charter … -students/ (Is first grade close enough?)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4S9LLoSeagThe video you provided though describes the tough situation that teachers are in. Students come to your classroom with for lack of a better term "baggage" They come with the influences of their home environment, the situations of their home environment, The views of their home environment and so on. The video basically shows a teacher being blindsided by this! It's not showing a curriculum that was in place by her district to teach gender identity. Whether you agree with it or not this is a situation that is going to have to be dealt with. Students are bringing it into the classroom. It looks like the teacher was trying to do the best she could to smooth over the situation. Even if she completely ignored it, which under several state laws now, she would have to turn a blind eye and act like it didn't even exist for fear of being sued. You don't think all of the students would continue to talk and form their own opinions? And bring those opinions home? Again too many people are leaving the students out of this equation. They do have thoughts they do have a mind of their own. Should the teacher try to provide some kind of structure based on their own education to deal with students or should they just turn a blind eye and let their imaginations run wild?
As a young student teacher about 30 years ago in a deep south Alabama school I witnessed a boy calling an African American girl a "darkie" He explained with a lot of glee actually how his uncle used the term. I also witnessed the teacher handle it with great ease and common sense. Today that wouldn't happen, The teacher may have to completely ignore this situation for fear of being sued and what other students may bring back to their parents. This country is currently in a crisis in terms of a teacher shortage. This type of legislation is only going to exacerbate the problem. To be a teacher is to accept long hours, low pay and some very unreasonable parents. Again, address the issues rather than sensationalize. Politicians should spend some time in classrooms to see what really happens.'This country(America?) is currently in a crisis in terms of a tearchers shortage... Politicians short spend some in classrooms to see what really happens.' You drive the nail straight into the peg. But d'you think America is the only country in the world with a shortage of techhers? In Japan, should a pupil or student could miss class...parents or wards represent them in absentia. So I like the ideal politicians attending class to access happenings in real time.
I agree with Faye.
But you nailed this point "I think there is support for a conservative thought of, "Geez, give em' and inch and they will take a mile.""
I think you just define the real issue in a "quote". That's the entitlement mentality, the privilege and the wanting to keep the power of "conservatives". Why should they give inches? Society/ the Country belongs to each citizen. The marginalized groups that kept quiet for decades, centuries, are not gonna take it anymore. And that scare the shit out of them. That's it.
That you think there is support for the thought is not surprising. It only shows you're part of that demographic.You are right IslandMom, I do fit in the demographic of [C]conservative, but I don't think the Republican [c]conservatives would have me.
And to your interpretation of "give em an inch . . .", that's just baloney—relative to the context of my use of it. Not surprising you see it that way, as you are a millennial, Bless your heart. ;-)
As part of the Big [C] demographic, I don't care what sex or gender one wants to be, it doesn't harm me. The same goes for most of the other social issues, accepting them causes me no harm. But, demanding that I agree is a different matter.
I am glad marginalized groups are getting heard, but to hell with the 1% demanding submission from the 99%.
GAI wont bother other than to say thank you for thinking I'm a millennial, I guess.
Nah. I'll take it as an age compliment. But in any case, I'll take millennial over close-minded dinosaur every time.
Oh my, "close-minded dinosaur"?
Based on my past forum exchanges with you, I am going to remain `confused' about that comment. If not, I can only read it as a harsh insult, and that's not like you. So I must be misreading your intention.
`Yeah, that's the ticket,' That closes the vent.
GAIt wasn't directed at you. It was the opposing generalization to the millennial generalization so frequently used here.
You're not (that) close-minded.
GA,
" I think it is the Democrats' fault, for pushing too much change, too hard, and too fast, that the Republican party has become so extreme." (a small fraction has become extreme in my view, and is it not fair to consider what is to be considered extreme? )
"I don't think the Democrats understand that their proposed changes aren't seen as progress by conservatives, they are seen as turning their lives upside down and inside out." (Understatement - As a Conservative, I feel the Democratic Party's agenda is ripping at the fiber of American values and is headed toward a Government that has no need for the Constitution.)That is just an excuse GA. These "poor" conservatives have been put upon? Why are the conservatives considered from your point of view to be always on the defensive? At this time and place they are definitely the more offensive of the two groups. What are progressives saying about conservative extremes and sheer madness? Are they not being pushed into a corner? But since we are the good guys, we have to be willing to accommodate and accept more? I doubt it.
Your speaking with me about incremental change is just that, change at pace with which you are comfortable is fine yet it is lagging for those needing it and for whom it is usually long overdue.
The Right is taking advantage in most instances to ram their agenda down our throats.
.Et tu, Brute? You're becoming too damn predictable Cred. Always looking for the worst possible interpretation of an intended message—initially. And it looks like you missed the point too.
I wasn't offering an excuse, I was offering a thought on the "why" of the mentioned Republican extremism. Since you like colloquialisms I made one up for you: I'm trying to talk about the dog and all you want to talk about is the hair of the dog—the details. Which is the expected `next' step, but you still have to talk about the dog first.
This "dog" is about the beliefs to be changed and the personal value of those beliefs. , not the rate of change. That, and even whether the beliefs are truly held, or not, is the next step, the hair of the dog.
For instance: my quip about the "Give em an inch . . . " feeling was almost certainly, judging by your comments; "incremental change is just that, change at pace," read in the most negative possible way. It involves giving something, granting a privilege, or accommodation.
I think I gave enough context leading to that quip; which was the adoption of a change in core life beliefs, (not small stuff like a gentleman holding the door for a lady), and the need for persuasion, (like it or not, you know that's a fact, people need to be persuaded to change), and the reality of steps being more acceptable to leaps when it comes to changing the serious stuff, to show the quip's intent.
I gave examples of the serious stuff I was talking about, so look at them again, and step on the other side for a bit. Consider your own personal core values, as a young parent, regarding your children. Pick one that's important to you.
Now consider that value being challenged. Small chips at first, and you can see the `rightness' of the chipping, and see that your value isn't harmed, (maybe even benefitted by), by the change. You adopt it. Then there's the next "chip," and it's a bit more to think about, but, you look at it as you did the first chip.
Then, of course, there's the next "chip," and it's even more of a bit to think about, it means more change. Now the chips are becoming more as accepted than adopted. This goes on until one last chip is just too much for you to accept, much less adopt. It turns that core principle you picked upside down. Black and white become gray at best or reversed at the worst.
You gave them an inch, not as a gift but as a change in belief, (much more valuable to both sides), over and over, and that still isn't okay, ("isn't enough" is not the message).
That's the context of my original comments. It applies to any of the examples mentioned or any social change issues you might think of. That's why I asked you to pick a real core value you held as a young family man. There are no details of the chips, (the hair of the dog), needed to answer the question—you get to pick the details yourself, and they are without argument.
Do you accept the gray, (you don't feel the "rightness" you did of the first few steps), do you accept the reversal, with a feeling of loss rather than rightness, or do you resist abandoning that core principle involving your children? How fiercely would you defend your children?
Does that explanation make any sense to you, or am I the one being unrealistic?
GAI am not stabbing you in the back and it's not the Ides of March.
I am not looking for the worst possible interpretation, just responding to what you said or say. You did say that YOU believed that the fact that the GOP acting like petulant toddlers in highchairs can be blamed on democrats wanting too much change too deeply and quickly? I have to remain the adult in the room regardless.
So, let's talk about the "dog", the blue dog, instead.
-------
Extremist to the Right? Greene, Gosar, Gaetz, Cawthorn, Boebert, Cruz, Hawley, Johnson. . The ones who previously called them themselves the America First caucus, based upon "Anglo-Saxon political traditions" I think they've since changed their name to the Freedom Caucus?
Whose "values" is this akin to, and why should I have any sympathy with conservatives for embracing it? Who is concerned about my reaction as a progressive advocate of color in response? How congruent is racism to my values?
----
Comments about Stacey Abrams, from Rick Scott and De Santis and what underlies them does not correspond with my values... talking about Cold War between adjacent states, how stupid and unhinged is that? What is it about my values that suggest that the people don't get to decide who their governor is going to be, without threats.
The QAnon madness and the insane accusations and threats that spread through the GOP like a virus is contrary to my values of truth and reasonableness and not insane and baseless threats and accusations. Are my values being threatened?
My values include academic freedom and the accurate teaching of American History and not propaganda. Are Conservatives values such that they are willing to die to promulgate the lie and the fable?
Then there is the Abortion matter where instead of the status quo,represented by Roe vs Wade, they are pushing for criminalizing women over zygotes. Now THAT is taking a mile when given far less. They are in for a power grab. My values speak of a reasonable boundary between woman's rights and the Right of the fetus. The conservative value is to hamstring everyone to their arcane rules, their way or the highway.
I don't care much about their points of view because I share few if any with them. I don't want my rights taken away merely to accommodate the Rightwinger and his or her paronoia.
From my perspective on the left, I have as much reason to get bent out of shape as you so generously allow the Right a justification to misbehave. Are you as quick to make such an allowance for the Left in America?
Never had a "family", but values that I put on high is fairness and equality, are you surprised? Rising Fascist values and autocracy would turn my world upside down, but it is "supposed" to be contrary to America's values as a nation. But as of late, I begin to wonder.
The core values of conservatives are much in contraction to those I hold myself. And that is why we don't get along well.
The excesses of the Right makes me as nervous as their perception of excesses from the Left make them. Why accommodate one set of fears and ignore the other?You are still talking about the hair. Let's get back to the dog, (even your Blue dog). I am not defending Republican extremism or idiocy. Faye's post hit the highlights, and I didn't disagree. My comment was just a defense of an understanding of the "why," not the actions.
My questions to you work just as well for your values of fairness and equality. Just pick one and imagine that "chipping" process. Do you accept a reversal of your fairness value? A graying of that value? Or do you discover you too have a `line in the sand'?
And that thought has nothing to do with the details, (Left, Right, red, or blue) of the "chips," but just to the act of attacking your value. (even if it is only a perceived attack).
If you can't address the validity of that thought, then any discussion of the details will just be a partisan position—from both sides. After all, if you feel justified in vilification and push-back because conservative values contradict your own, then why aren't conservatives justified to feel the same?
GAMy only point, GA, is that your "why" can apply to both sides. But our side is not going bat**** over it.
Chipping away at equality and fairness is chipping away at our vaunted creed, which I consider as an unraveling of America.
I am addressing the validity, you simply cannot acknowledge the angst of one side without acknowledging the angst of the other.You got me. You're right that I haven't considered the `other' side's worry over this—seriously enough.
I didn't/don't(?) see your concerns as such `bedrock' attacks on your principles as I did for `my' side.
You have a fair point. I still hold my position on that aspect, but I can't support it with more than a perception, and it is a strong perception that I believe is right.
GaOk, but this is my perception of things, and I believe that it is the correct one, also. Violation of the principles laid out below are a threat to my "bedrock" values and those of the left, in general.
---------
"Well, there’s a reason the Republicans get the blame for destroying any sense of common American narrative. It’s because — pay close attention here — they deserve the blame for destroying any sense of common American narrative.
Sorry, but Hunter Biden’s laptop didn’t do that. Black Lives Matter didn’t do that. Whatever thing Fox “News” last told its audience to fear did not do that.
The Republican Party did it by a campaign of demonizing dissent, shredding norms and boundaries, embracing a politics of white resentment and fear and, perhaps most corrosively, delegitimizing the very idea of knowable fact, so that an ordinary birth certificate becomes an object of suspicion, an ordinary election a seedbed of distrust and the sacking of the U.S. Capitol an innocent visit by tourists.
"Is it mere partisanship to hold the party accountable for this? Or are we not talking about something bigger and more foundational than political gamesmanship? Note how many of the GOP’s ardent defenders — George F. Will, Rep. Adam Kinzinger, Kathleen Parker, Rep. Liz Cheney, Sen. Mitt Romney, Jonah Goldberg — have become, to various degrees, estranged from it in recent years. None of those worthies may be credibly accused of being anti-Republican.
But what they are is conscientious enough that they cannot deny self-evident truth when it is right before them. Some of us prefer to peddle misguided both-sidesism, to spew non-responsive non-sequiturs or stick metaphorical fingers in metaphorical ears going “la la la la la la la” until the truth safely passes them by.
Meantime, one party steers the ship of state toward jagged rocks.
Political scientists Thomas E. Mann and Norman J. Ornstein once observed that, “The Republican Party has become an insurgent outlier — ideologically extreme; contemptuous of the inherited social and economic policy regime; scornful of compromise; unpersuaded by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.”"spew non-responsive non-sequiturs or stick metaphorical fingers in metaphorical ears "
Non-responsive non-sequiturs, metaphorical fingers, metaphorical ears, and both-sidisms? Hells bells Cred, I can't compete with that.
In my mind, I have been speaking of Conservatives, including the ones that are Republican conservatives, not Republican conservatives as a party. Their individual perspectives don't have to be that of their conglomeration, (I did try to sneak in a little one), into the perspective of the Republican party.
So, when you point to party machinations, we are talking about different things.
GA
OK so LGBTQ is the norm and those who are concerned about teaching such issues to Pre-K students are extremists.
"their assault on LGBTQ rights as “groomers” and declaring any progressive social position adjacent to pedophilia."
There may be some reason for concern there, there was/is a large push by pedophile communities to get themselves included into the LGBTQ grouping, evidence of this can be found aplenty on the Internet:
https://aboutpedophilia.com/2018/08/31/ … edophiles/
https://www.africanamerica.org/topic/pe … pedophilia
Now that you have explained what your views are of extremists and extremism I feel there would be nothing beneficial to come from continuing this conversation.
I see your opinions on these matters more of the extreme than the people you are calling out who claim concern over such, I'll leave it at that.
President Biden has secured at this point almost 14 billion dollars in aid for Ukraine. I don't necessarily think he needs a photo op but you're right it would look nice but our support to Ukraine is definitely rock solid.
At the time President Biden was in Poland, It was a much more active war situation in Kyiv.You diverting the conversation. We could play who has given more aid, but my comment was not about aid. IT WAS ABOUT SUPPORT.
Yes, I watched the footage of him in Poland when he was asked would he travel to Kyiv he said "they won't let me". This man sickens me, I can put it no other way.
We differ in opinion on what a president should do in times of crisis. We have a history of presidents that show up... You making excuses in my opinion. To some American, it's important to have a president that does show up and support allies in a crisis.
The truth be told the UK has given a huge amount of aid to Ukrainian for their war effort.Simply pointing out there is a different circumstance on the ground in Kyiv at The time of each leaders visit to the area.
These are not excuses. I'm just recognizing the reality of the situation. And I can agree that you can show support through money and weapons or a photo op or the whole package. Again, I have no interest in being oppositional with people or taking a partisan "side" My views are opinions don't come from partisanship. I'm not looking for ways to point the finger at the other "side" to say look you're wrong, you're wrong! It's absolutely exhausting on this forum that absolutely everything is a partisan issue. They're just isn't enough genuine consideration of the facts. People don't read to understand a perspective they read to make a counterattack based on party lines. But you know that's the way most politicians would like to see it. Hold the party line regardless. I've never done it and never will.
What is all this nonsense about people being taught to hate Trump and America?
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol … 501321001/
Donald Trump was an immoral despicable sort as early as 1989, helping to railroad 14 year old minors into prison over a crime they did not commit. The city of New York paying 41 million in damages to the boys' and their families, and Trump after all of this still insists the boys were guilty. Based on what? I don't need to be brainwashed and taught, all I need are two eyes that are open to see.
Then there was the "birther" thing. He attacks President Obama about his origins and consequently his being eligible for the office for which he was duly elected. While smarter people than Trump certainly made sure of Obama's eligibility even before he could be considered as a candidate. Next, Trump wanted to have Obama publically provide his transcripts from Harvard. Just who does he think that he is? Funny that, while he insists that his own transcripts remain hermetically sealed. I wonder why?
So, boys and girls, he is a jerk and has well deserved the ire that he has received IMHO. He has shown a lack of character and decency from the very beginning. So, yes, I don't like him. It is not partisan but an observation quite evident by anyone that bothers to look. And you know what, I don't apologize for itCred, oh I see why you dislike Trump. You know politicians and their antics? Let me tell you a real story. In 1978, Nigeria was about transisting to civilian democratic rule. And politicians were leveraging the weakness of their opponents. Two great friends . Obafemi Awolowo and Dr. Nnamdi Azikwe soon become political divide just over stockfish head to win the presidency. The issue is over the stockfish head. It's human, claims Awo. Zik began to import the stuff into Nigeria. Both lost the presidency to a Shehu Shangari. But the main question is ethnic, as Zik and Awo are Igbo and Yuroba respectively. So who should rule Nigeria? People had a good loud laugh back than. Does that stuck?
All this is true.
Many find him loathsome and that is understandable.
But he also made decisions that helped the economy, helped get jobs and education to the middle and lower classes, kept us out of new wars, redacted trade agreements that were in need of updating, rescinded the "tax" on people who could not afford or did not want health insurance, etc. etc.
Unfortunately, the best leadership decisions came from the most divisive President in history.
And now in his place we have someone far less divisive but far more detrimental to our economy and our position of strength on the global stage.I dunno, Ken, it seems "divisive" is the latest code word used by Trump apologists these days.
Trump goes beyond divisive, vicious would be more accurate. I don't trust "vicious" people in charge.
Your evaluation of his term and leadership skills is still just a subjective one on your part, not shared by most others more qualified to make these evaluations than either you or I.
Yes, let's just ignore the narratives which were created and repeated over and over again, to the point of bringing the phrase, "if you repeat a lie often enough, people begin to believe it", front and center!
When Biden was in Brussels recently, he was STILL repeating the lie about Charlottesville and about what President Trump said and didn't say about it.
Today's big lie(s) being repeated are how Joe didn't know anything about Hunter's dealings abroad, they never talked about it and...no one knows who "the big guy" is.
Now that Trump has been properly dealt with, Ron DeSantis is now the target l. I have heard the 'Parents Rights in Education' bill ONLY referred to as the Don't Say Gay' Bill, school children are repeating it, CLUELESS Hollywood actors are repeating it. Woke Disney Corp. is repeating it....... such a WHOPPER.....but it has been repeated enough times to convince people that there is such thing out there!!
I was watching when DeSantis went to a school and told kids, you don't need to wear those masks. The next day it was repeated as, DeSantis gets angry, DeSantis "attacked" students! I have personally seen that big whopper repeated here in the forums.
Trump's unusual gesture of shrugging and making a face in almost every single speech was repeatedly shown and described as him making fun of a special needs person.
People believe it actually happened because they were supposed to/they were programmed to. We were supposed to see him in the worst possible light, in order to hate him so that he could be made to go away!
The establishment did not/do not want him there, because he was there for all of the RIGHT REASONS (same with DeSantis)
They aren't on board with transforming us into something else. They aren't on board to simply get richer off of this Country. They are not on board to cater to special interests!!
They are on board to serve the people and to honor the U.S. Constitution and for that, the false narratives must be created and repeated. There is no better way to take down America.It's all physics. Newton's third law is: For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. The statement means that in every interaction, there is a pair of forces acting on the two interacting objects. The size of the forces on the first object equals the size of the force on the second object.
. . . <> Obama <> Trump <> Biden <> Ad infinitum . . ."Woke Disney Corp"
What does this mean? I see this word "woke" being used mostly in a derogatory manner. What does this word mean to you?
And as far as Governor DeSantis and the masked children. Maybe he could have quietly let them express their freedom to wear a mask if they wanted to. Just a thought.Well it sure as heck isn't the Walt Disney Family running things, they've strayed so far from Walt's vision. He would not be pleased with their wicked agenda.
The second part of DeSantis' interaction with the students, right after he says, just so you know, you don't have to wear those masks, was, if you have to, go ahead, but.....
I am listening, AB, the examples that I gave were not lies but corroborates with the accounts from countless sources of responsible journalism.
Naturally, I don't care for Ron DeSantis, nor his politics. I but I will reserve judgement on his "Parent Rights in Education", until I have evaluated it more carefully.
Nobody is being programmed like some sort of automaton, I come to my conclusions based on what I can see and what is corroborated as true from every responsible source.
They, Trump and DeSantis are and represent special interests in of themselves, not of the sort that I am interested in. This "take down America" stuff is just more dramatic hype.
And Faye is right, DeSantis should have kept his mouth shut about the children and the masks, as parents are the ones that decide if their children should or should not wear masks. If we want to talk about Parental Rights in Education, we can begin right there. Many of us still wear them as I and others are not convinced that the COVID danger has truly passed.Amen, we agree on something, Parents should decide!!!! Now straighten out Joe and the many other overreaching, overbearing Dems.
DeSantis did not threaten anyone. He said "just so you know, you don't have to wear those masks". It wasn't such a big deal.
Mountains out of molehills.Overreach?
Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt just signed a bill into law on Tuesday that makes it a felony to perform an abortion, punishable by up to 10 years in prison, this is part of an aggressive push in Republican-led states across the country to scale back abortion rights and one-up one another on Just how much control they can take away from women.
There is no clearer example of government overreach than an administration unilaterally making decisions for an individual's body."and one-up one another on Just how much control they can take away from women." (Is this not just your opinion? I am a woman, and I see it differently. I see it as a Governor protecting the unborn. A human without a voice. Is your opinion on this subject more important or the last word so to say?)
"There is no clearer example of government overreach than an administration unilaterally making decisions for an individual's body."
In this case --- Consider the "leader" Governor of a state is keeping a campaign promise. He made it clear while campaigning that he was pro-life. So is it really overreach?
Stitt beat Democrat Drew Edmondson by nearly 12 percentage points, Stitt won 73 of the state's 77 counties, including Tulsa County. He campaigned on being anti-abortion. It would seem he is keeping a promise he made to the people that voted him into office. Many Conservative Republicans are anti-abortion, this includes women. These women don't see abortion as an option or a right, they see it as killing a human being. Ultimately, factually that's what abortion is.
Women that support life have the right to be heard, and their rights are as important as those of women that are pro-choice. Pro-lifers do not speak for all women. They certainly don't speak for me... My opinion on abortion is complicated due to being a nurse. I have come to realize the many variables involved in abortion. However, I respect the pro-life women due to their commitment to saving lives and sticking to their morals when it comes to killing an unborn human being.
I am sure this new law in Oklahoma will end up in the Supreme Court.I don't think you can make a campaign promise of controlling anothers' body. And that's why you're right, it will head to the Supreme Court. It also bothers me that these laws are almost always surrounded in religious language in which it really has no place.
But what happened to My Body, My Choice.? ” The rallying cry of the anti-vax crowd. And I'm not just referring to the covid anti-vax crowd.
Keep in mind there is enormous overlap between the anti-vax crowd and the pro-life crowd. If you made a Venn diagram featuring those two groups, it would appear as a single, colored circle; maybe not 100 percent overlap, but close.
The logic eludes me. The Republican Party purports to stand for individual freedom and limited government, but that’s simply not true. When it comes to abortion, father knows best.
But again not to be outdone, the Anti–Birth Control Movement Is the New Anti-Abortion Movement.
In the Missouri statehouse, lawmakers debated whether they needed to restrict Medicaid coverage of birth control and limit payments to Planned Parenthood. And there are many more exams I won't overload the thread with. But the direction seems to be headed toward overturning Roe and then Griswold v Connecticut.
I suppose we'll go back to simply preaching abstinence?Well, yes these are my opinions. Probably my most strongly held opinion so I didn't feel The need to make a factual argument. It's just as you have done with your stance on this position. I should have more clearly labeled as my opinion. I'm not sure how much empirical evidence is out there on the rights and wrongs of abortion.
"These women don't see abortion as an option or a right"
That's perfectly fine for them to hold that belief especially on religious grounds but the Constitution of the United States protects a pregnant woman's liberty to choose to have an abortion without excessive government restriction. And that's just the facts. Governor Stitt's campaign promises fly in the face of the Constitution.
And in terms of "killing a human being" We would have to defer to science on that one.
Most states still allow abortion under 20 weeks. Some under 13 weeks. Some religions believe life starts at conception. Hence the coming efforts to ban that also."And in terms of "killing a human being" We would have to defer to science on that one.
I am a nurse, I can 100% verify an aborted fetus was a human being. After 16 weeks they have a strong heartbeat, and although only 4 or 5 in and can fit in one's palm of the hand they are well-formed. They feel pain and are able to suck their thumb. So, I can tell you factually. I Have seen many fetuses in just about every trimester due to spontaneous abortion. They are human beings.
I would like to know what you feel a fetus is?
It's unfortunate that I too feel some abortions are necessary due to incest, rape, and a Mother that's health is compromised.
I promote birth control. I think this would show a woman is truely making decisions about becoming pregnant. I think this is a no-brainer and all this BS about the right to choose --- choose to be intelligent about having sex.
So, simple...So this is what is said about when a fetus experiences pain.
https://supreme.findlaw.com/legal-comme … sions.html
Yes birth control makes sense but there are already many efforts underway to curb it's availability.
Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee has already indicated her interest in Griswold v Connecticut. Stating she considered the decision to be "unconstitutionally sound"
And from the state of Michigan..
https://www.freep.com/story/opinion/col … 879282001/
And from Missouri...
https://www.kansascity.com/news/politic … 59208.html
In terms of what I feel a fetus is. I will defer to medical science on that. Should abortions happen at will beyond 20 weeks? No absolutely not. And of course, birth control should be widely available but it isn't. Maybe more efforts are needed to make sure access and education is there for all instead of total abortion bans. Again, where is the compromise? Where is the willingness to work on real solutions to a problem?I totally agree but then this type of education steps on ultra conservative toes also. One other point that I wanted to mention is that I think these bans are so short-sighted. Regardless of legislation, abortions have always gone on and will continue to go on. The difference is who will have access to a safe procedure and who will be subject to more horrific means. The more well-off will always be able to get to a state that allows a safe abortion by a doctor. Those without financial means, in restrictive states will just be sent back to the dark ages of backstreet procedures, or they will take it upon themselves through physical means or concoctions they find on the internet. I think we'll see a lot of maternal death and a lot of horrific brutal circumstances. An abortion ban is just another easy Band-Aid. Does it solve a problem? I just don't think so. It appeases some while ignoring the reality of the situation.
A person is an animal that has a heartbeat, are well formed in the general shape of a person, feel pain and suck their thumb?
I ask, not to be snarky but as an honest question. Are those the things that separate homo sapiens from other animals? Personally I think there is a lot more (a lot more) to distinguishing us from other animals. Beginning with a developed prefrontal cortex capable of reasoning but not ending there.I was offering a description of a fetus at 16 weeks, I could have been more graphic, and lengthy with my description, but felt a being that has well-formed fingers, and can suck their thumb would or should indicate it is a human being. There is a lot more, they have eyelids, lashes, transparent skin, fingers and toes, nails, and even a bit of hair. At 16 weeks a baby is formed. Lastly, sex is defined and visible. One does not need science to see all of this on an aborted fetus and know that it is a human being, and is dead.
Just another thought Sharlee, I don't assume to know if you come to your beliefs on abortion through religion but consider the fact that we do execute fully grown human beings.
Like Mike Christian, the pro-life Oklahoma state representative told The Associated Press, “I realize this may sound harsh, but as a father and former lawman, I really don’t care if it’s by lethal injection, by the electric chair, firing squad, hanging, the guillotine or being fed to the lions.”
He also threatened to impeach judges who dared delay executions for any reason.
This is from a man who is so strongly pro-life he voted for eight bills in four years to prevent women in Oklahoma from terminating their pregnancies, or, as many who oppose abortion say, “killing babies.”
that smacks of hypocrisy doesn't it?
The only nonhypocritical viewpoint, exists in the Catholic Church.
Catholics believe in the “Consistent Ethic of Life.” As Georgetown’s Father Thomas Reese puts it, “we are concerned about a person from womb to tomb.
Life is something that comes from God and shouldn’t be taken away by man,”
If you ask a Southern Baptist, he or she will likely tell you the Catholic Church is wrong.
Let the debate rage on.You are actually comparing adults, who have made choices to do horrendous things to other people... to innocent babies who aren't capable of hurting a soul?
Solely on the basis of religion yes I am.
As in, only religious people would think this comparison is wrong and way off base?
No. That wasn't my point. My point was only to highlight the disconnect between those who oppose abortion based on religion but do not have an objection to capital punishment. Most Christians believe judgment belongs only to God.
How? Are there not any other religious people that could make something good out of it?
Faye, Sorry I will cut you off at the ankle here ---
"Just another thought Sharlee, I don't assume to know if you come to your beliefs on abortion through religion but consider the fact that we do execute fully grown human beings."
This anology makes little sense to me. Those that have committed horrendous crimes against humanity are executed. A fetus committed no crime whatsoever.
It is very different to kill an innocent baby, that's chance at life was taken away, for not a crime, but much of the time just being an
inconvenience, a mistake of not using birth control.
Many women argue that it's their bodies, their choice. Ultimately in my view appear to be very unintelligent. Do they realize they choose to have a medical procedure to solve "their conception problem" instead of taking the very easy intelligent route of birth control? In my view, this lack of intelligence does not really bode well for women. And yes, as I mentioned in a previous comment incidents where women had no control, such as rape or incest.
For me it's not all about religion, it's about morals. As humans, we seem to be able to kill without the true thought that we are killing a baby. Sorry as I said at the end of all the discussions, and pros and cons -- abortion ends with a dead baby.
It to me is so clear... I see you ignored the facts about a 16-week fetus.
Curious. It seems many back away when a fetus becomes more like a baby than a fetus. I think if a woman could see the result of their baby in a lab jar, they might think differently the next time around. Well, some might.My point was to merely say that people form their foundation in support or against abortion based on different things. Some people base Their view on science, some an emotion and very, very many on religion. I only wanted to point out that, for me, It is hard to reconcile the simultaneous pro-life stance/pro capital punishment based on predominantly Christian beliefs that clearly state judgment is not our own. I didn't mean to infer anything beyond that.
In terms of a 16-week fetus. I understand that there are no circumstances in which a fetus could survive at this point outside the womb. I also understand that even at 22 weeks while a fetus could be viable it would take extraordinariy means to ensure survival while almost always resulting in catastrophic disability. Additionally I understand that pain cannot be felt until 28 weeks. Now I'm just stating this. I hope that no one reads any more into what my thoughts may be on it or my motives may be or what my morals may be. I'm just stating these facts. I do not have a science background or a medical background so that's about as far as I will go into any medical territory.
Where I stand? I Do not see abortion going away, legal or not. Politicians will not stop abortions. What they will do is send them back to the procedures of the past. Abortion will continue, those who have monetary means will be able to seek out safe procedures while those without the financial resources will be left to more brutal methods.
It seems that most of our current Supreme Court justices believe that Roe v Wade is settled law but we will see if they backtrack.
And just for the record here, my view is that women should have access to abortion. Do I think 28 weeks, 24 weeks is acceptable? No I actually don't.
Also like I had mentioned previously I don't think that many women are just unintelligent and feel they can rely on abortion as a method of birth control. I realize that this situation does exist though. That is where education comes in. But in this highly charged political, culture war climate How and where does this education take place? That's a whole different conversation. Children are becoming sexually active as young as in middle school. Can you see the outrage a school board meeting if districts wanted to include education around contraception and safe sex? You know all hell would break loose. But in reality that's probably where it needs to happen to have any effect.
But Access to affordable birth control is quickly disappearing also. Take a look at how many Southern States have one clinic to an entire state to access birth control. Usually a public health department. Not everyone can afford a doctor's visit.
And if Roe v Wade is overturned what then? What is the plan for the unwanted babies? As you have bared witness to abortion in the medical arena I have cared for a good many abandoned to our nations social service system in foster care. Many of those born to mothers who never wanted them, continued their drug use while carrying them, abused and neglected them until The state finally snatched them away. And I will certainly qualify that with saying that it isn't all horror story There are some wonderful success stories.
In my view, The well organized contingency of pro-life supporters Should direct their attention and efforts to girls and women BEFORE They become pregnant. A little more prevention would go a long way. But where can the political outrage be whipped up in that? It wouldn't make for the political theater We are accustomed to today.
For me, this is yet another fight that misses the target. You're right when you summize that many in government aren't solution oriented. A ban on abortion is not a solution to the problem of unwanted pregnancy.I actually feel most states have pretty good laws on abortion in regards to gestation, and the age of a woman that can get an abortion. As I said in some cases abortion should be an option. And there are women that are not fit to raise children. I can verify this by the horrific abuse I have witnessed committed by moms.
Abortion is a very sticky subject.
No, one needs a definition of what a human being is. Something beyond appearance, IMO - humans have a very wide range of appearance, so that isn't worth much, again IMO.
A person may not have all their limbs. They may not have hair or may have gobs and gobs of it. They may be deformed in a myriad of ways (all from birth, I do not mean accident of mutilation), to the point that appearance just doesn't mean much.
At 16 weeks I think we could likely all determine the difference between a human and a chimp; at 4 weeks I doubt it and at 2 weeks it is likely impossible for anyone but a trained biologist and perhaps not then. Appearance does not make "persons" out of a living fetus. IMO.
All that is why I asked; I highly respect your opinions in these forums, but to determine "humanness", or "personhood" on the basis of appearance does not seem reasonable to me.I do not believe to assume humanness or personhood within a human's/person's body, is a stretch.
But, to take away from humanness/personhood of life in its earliest stage, is a stretch!I am very confused? Let's back up and have a look at the conversation that brought up conception, and my response, my opinion as a nurse in regards to hoping to point out that even at 16 weeks if a baby is aborted one can tell it was visibly a living human being or organism. Some states permit abortion up to 24 weeks. Some states allow abortion up to 28 weeks.
This is the comment I was responding to ----"And in terms of "killing a human being" We would have to defer to science on that one.
Most states still allow abortion under 20 weeks. Some are under 13 weeks. Some religions believe life starts at conception. Hence the coming efforts to ban that also."
I guess we can agree to disagree --- I truely (do to my own experience )
Feel a fetus is a human being from the actual time of conception. A baby is scientifically composed of human cells and human DNA. Cells and DNA that if left to develop will produce a human being. The essence of my conversation with Faye was about conception, when should a fetus be looked at scientifically as a human being or one could say a human organism. Which is very apparent at 16 weeks. Not a puppy, not a bird, but a baby, a human. I realize some that support abortion like to get very technical, and scientific.
Like I say I may come by my view due to seeing fetuses firsthand, and one can argue and beat around the bush, but at the end of abortion, whether it be spontaneous or purposeful, in the end, we dispose of a dead human baby boy or girl.
When you use the word "humanness," I assume you are referring to the quality of being human? When you use the word "personhood" -
the quality or condition of being an individual person, I can see your point that a fetus has not developed into an individual person. Due to not being exposed to living in a society, and having the ability to form an individual personality.Interesting conversation - I have seldom found anyone willing to try and define "human", just making the statement that a fetus is or isn't without any reasoning. As I don't have a good definition myself I'm always looking for reasoning to support either side of the argument.
"We would have to defer to science on that one."
My point is that we can't use science as science only comes close to defining a homo sapiens species and that isn't good enough. Not nearly good enough. There is far more to being a "human" than belonging to the species. It is up to us, all of us, to define what constitutes a "human". This is in line with your final paragraph; I use "person" rather than human because I believe we are on the edge of declaring that some other animals (cetaceans, other great apes, perhaps others) are a "person" in their own right, with all the rights we enjoy. Probably not in my lifetime, but it will happen.
Which is, again, a part of why I reject appearance. Combined with the huge variation of our appearances, that just isn't good enough. And it goes deeper; you mentioned a heartbeat. My (grand?)niece has had 2 heart surgeries in just a few months after birth to correct deformities; was her (inadequate) heartbeat enough to call her "human"? Does severe retardation cancel out that humanness? Or severe Down's Syndrome? What about a fetus without a forebrain - no reasoning process will ever develop?
The appearance of a 16 week old fetus is certainly not within the norms of the race; the head is far too large (I doubt they could function if that relative size continued). Doesn't that make it "unhuman"?
One description:
"High functioning animals on this earth have large frontal lobes. The foremost area of the frontal lobe is the prefrontal cortex, or PFC (see lower right). The human brain’s PFC is proportionally largest among all other animals and it is what makes us very different from all other animals. It is what makes us "human".
What does it mean to be "human"?
The PFC is often called the executive of the brain as it is where complex planning and thinking occurs. It may be the reason we have our so-called consciousness, although we must concede that the term is a metaphor for an idea this is ill-defined. It seem to be where our human-like focus lies (Geday & Gjedde, 2009)."
http://fab-efl.com/onlinelearning/page1 … index.html
At what point has that prefrontal lobe developed enough to be "human"? How can we tell, and how can we define that point? That is not the department of science; it is that of philosophers and lawmakers.
You haven't defined when that appearance is sufficient to call it murder (killing a human being), either. Is it at 10 weeks? 5 weeks? Conception, when there is a single cell? Or are you in the position I am - I don't know? I'm willing to state categorically that a fetus travelling down the birth canal is human, and that a zygote is not. Beyond that I fail miserably at find the point that zygote becomes a person (although I'm willing to narrow that period considerably), with all the rights of any other person. So I accept RvW, leaving it up to the person(s) involved to make a personal determination, within limits I can accept.
Wilderness, your last sentense is a pick. D'you think a human being and an animal brainy thoughts are a comparison? Men train the animals...
I am glad that we find a morsel on which to agree.
What is it with you people? Criminalizing abortion at the point of conception has to be madness. What are you going to do about the women that ingest substances that accomplish the same? How are going to stop women who can't get an abortion in Texas from going to Colorado to get one? Are you going to restrict their movements or punish those that advise them as to how to get an abortion in a more progressive state? I don't care about religions of most Rightwingers as there being nothing more than the height of double standards and hypocrisy. Why is your interpretation of where life begins any more valid than mine? Are comparable impositions being placed upon the men involved?
From what I hear, your gang is going after "birth control" next. There can't be anything more futile than to protect an embryo from a mother that does not want it."How are going to stop women who can't get an abortion in Texas from going to Colorado to get one? Are you going to restrict their movements or punish those that advise them as to how to get an abortion in a more progressive state?
Actually, yes. Not to be outdone, Missouri lawmakers want to stop their residents from having abortions even if they take place in another state.
The first-of-its-kind proposal would allow private citizens to sue anyone who helps a Missouri resident have an abortion. From the out-of-state physician who performs the procedure to whoever helps transport a person across state lines to a clinic.
This kind of extremism is dragging women back to the dark ages. This is a war on women. The goal? to put female sexuality under strict and brutal state control.
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/03/1 … i-00018539Yes, Faye, I have read about the proposal by the Missouri legislator. It is outrageous. It has to follow for restrictive abortion laws in the red states to have an effect, they wii find some way to physically set parameters on her movements and criminalize any thing that she might ingest that could harm the fetus.
Taking you back to their "good ole days" of "barefoot and pregnant". Who is naive enough to believe that as a result there would be no adverse effects to a woman's status and opportunities in this society, that were hard earned?
I am just glad that I am not female, I would be furious.Isn't that what the left wants? Women barefoot and pregnant? They certainly don't want them competing in sports, not unless biological males {aka: men} are allowed to compete against them, if they want to and prefer to.
The left is about "choice" and that is inherently liberating. Roe vs Wade was the compromise, why are your folks so anxious to change the goal posts?
I do not subscribe to the idea of transgender people being allowed to compete in sports completions when it is clear by their genitalia at the point of birth that they belong to the opposite gender. I may have room to compromise over a Christine Jorgensen type situation, but not less.The Left is about choice, within the constraints of what they beleive.
If they believe there are 72 sexes, you do not have the right to say there are only 2.
If they believe a child can be aborted even after it is born (and these days they can keep preemies alive after only 6 months with ease) you are trampling on women's rights to say otherwise (the child has no rights at all).
I happen to agree with the current trend as far as transgenders go, it fits the narrative of the "liberating left", if a man wakes up one morning and feels like he is a woman (IE- Bruce Jenner) and wants to compete against women in sports or wants to claim minority status, who are you to say he can't?
I am looking forward to the near future, when the Hispanic population is greater than the "white" population, I also think a few years down the line it will be a good time for me to identify myself as a woman, I will really be cleaning up in the "minority status" then. Just like Bruce, once the testosterone gets low enough (due to age), why not?
This thread has gotten way off the track... WWIII???No, you can believe whatever you choose. I just don't use my opinion to deny these folks equal access to housing, or anything else others are entitled to.
I just don't like the idea of this stuff in the bathrooms and the athletic field, but that is just me. Rather than the provincial thinking of the conservative, I refer to the objective reality that physically, most men have an advantage over most women, and I say most. So,there is the undeniable matter of gender that is not subjective and cannot be ignored.
Roe verses Wade was the compromise, giving the State the right to restrict abortions after a specific time during the pregnancy. The viability of the fetus beyond the support of the mother is a factor that is built in. But where is that "right" at the point of conception? Much of the laws put in place by red states presume to know that for everybody. That is the difference between Progressive thinking and that of conservatives, the ability to accept things even though you may disagree. Where there is an option or a choice, it should be respected.
Yeah, the the thread his been misdirected, but what the hell?This thread is now as if it were being converted to any topic under the Sun. Any topic is becoming part and parcel of the Vladimir Putin war in Ukraine. Twice, and now I've said it again we've digress much on the war thread. So the 'hell' has become part and parcel of the talk. Is that not what a conversation is? Guys, you disagree? Or should the discusrion be monotonous? We're okay.
"Much of the laws put in place by red states presume to know that for everybody. That is the difference between Progressive thinking and that of conservatives, the ability to accept things even though you may disagree."
You mean like no one should own a gun? Like the US is responsible for supporting the world's poor? Like it is fine to riot and destroy if your cause is just?
Just a few where the tables are turned and it is the left that feels they know for everyone. It is not limited to the right, nor is it particularly unbalanced.There is a difference between what the left "thinks" and what the Right not only thinks but that is actually being codified into law. Your example and my example are of extremes, but who is the actual culprit here by turning their tired old ethics into universal law? When has the Left actually threatened your dreams of a Wild Bill Hickok world?. Rightwingers are certainly putting lock boxes on uteruses at the point of conception which has certainly been private and none of their business.
Cred, it is sad, but not surprising, that you cannot recognize the similarities in your complaint and mine. At the root both are attempts to control others, and for no valid reason, but as one is labeled "progressive" or "liberal" and the other "conservative" you are blind to it - one is acceptable and one is not, based on the labels.
(If you don't think gun controls, and gun confiscation) isn't being codified into law you need to look around. If you don't think that "defunding the police" is happening (with the resultant rise in crime)...well, you know better.
Whose a bigot? I'm not. And besides, is independent thinking better than group thinking?
Yes, independent thought, is what saves us!
Happy Easter Everyone!Happy Easter, .
When we get this thread back onto topic, I'll have some insight to add.
Until then, enjoy the holiday.Ken, your insights are valuable, and you seems to have a knack, or may I say a special understanding of the issue that befalls Ukraine. Again, you seem to have a sort of connections there. Do the think as promise.
Thanks.
I don't want to back track too much as to the cause or who is to blame, but when I come across new information that I can verify I think it is important to inject into the discussion.
Those of you who are familiar with my posts know I have zero trust in our MSM news, this is one more instance where that mistrust is confirmed.
What triggered the invasion, what you will never hear from our American MSM is that Zelenskyy was seeking support from "the West" to retake Crimea and in March 2021 adopted into law the decision to reconquer Crimea by force.
Ukraine had started a build-up of the Ukrainian armored forces in the southern parts of the country and the Russians were aware of this build-up and the intent to take Crimea by force. Ukraine also amassed up to 60,000 troops in the Donbas region preparing for the offensive on it.
On the 16th of February, Ukraine began a massive artillery bombardment of "Rebel" positions in the Donbas region, and this increase in the shelling was observed by the Border Observer Mission of the OSCE (Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe), they recorded this increase of violations.
Russia spent months building up troops along the border, but only in response to Ukraine's build up and increased efforts to gain support for a takeover of Crimea and Donbas by force.
The rest, as they say, is history. This is a war that did not begin on the 24th of February, this is a war that began 14 years ago... "the West" refused to accept Crimea seceding from Ukraine and everything done by "the West" as much as by Russia has led to this point.
Now to the current situation.
Even without reinforcements now arriving, that Russia pulled from what I now believe were strategic feints toward Kyiv, Odessa, etc. Russia's East - South-East invasion has pushed back Ukrainian fighters in some areas of the Donbas and secured around 90% of Luhansk region, while encircling good portions of the Ukraine forces elsewhere in the region.
I doubt Zelenskyy will negotiate on their behalf, or give any concessions, so it is likely those soldiers will suffer gruesome deaths, which I expect "the West" will try and use to escalate the war, especially America.
I am becoming more convinced that this is exactly the outcome our nation's leadership wants, I'm not sure what their timeline is, I'm not sure what they have planned to be the escalator (the excuse) to allow them entry into the war... but I think it is almost a foregone conclusion that we will be entering into WWIII soon enough.
Supporting documentation that the Ukraine Army instigated the conflict:
https://www.republicworld.com/world-new … eshow.html
https://indianexpress.com/article/world … s-7779622/
Current escalation efforts:
https://www.businessinsider.in/politics … 830981.cms
https://www.sofx.com/2022/04/14/elite-u … al-herald/Ken,
What is it with Putin and the constant NAZI reference? Eighty years ago was the Soviet Unions finest hour. Is it a way to rally support for his invasion at home?
This NAZI schick is disegenous on his part and is an excuse.
If I were Putin, I would bring in chemical weapons, a ratchet down from introducing tactical nukes, yet they can bring down Ukraine with weapons they don't possess.There was another thread, where I explained in depth the history of Ukraine, the literal split in histories and populations between the "two halves" of the country.
The Western half has ties to Poland, a history where they sided with the Nazis, their history and outlook is far different than the Eastern half, which is far more closely aligned to Russia and its history than it is Western Ukraine.
But that matters little now, the right or wrong of this doesn't matter when we are certain to see this escalate, and those most wanting that escalation are pulling the strings in DC.
Ken, thanks. Now, I've a background of the confliict to add to my data bank.
Seems likely Ken. Early on, I saw a couple of interviews with U.S. Special forces already in Ukraine, before Putin's invasion. I wasn't surprised by that, not with the history there.
Russia's current focus {attack} is on Western Ukraine, very, very close to the Polish border! So far this war has been contained within Ukraine, but will it inevitably spill into other Countries? Then what? There are many signs of this war escalating and sadly, no signs of de-escalation.
"The goal? to put female sexuality under strict and brutal state control."
Can you actually believe that? That the goal is not to save lives, but to strictly and brutally control the sexuality of women?
If so it is certainly one of the reasons that the country cannot come together on the matter of abortion, for the opponents will undoubtedly claim that your goal is to murder children. One claim is as false as the other.
Not sure if I am the "you people" you're referring to, but I am all for birth control. It comes in various forms and it is easily accessible - whether it's the 7-Eleven down the road, the neighborhood Walgreens/CVS, your Doctor's office, the local health clinic.....
What about abortion immediately after the egg is fertilized?
If a rape or incest is involved, then yes, asap, once the crime has been recorded, if there's a possibility of pregnancy. But as birth control, after the fact, as is the most practiced, no. If participating in adult behavior, be responsible, as with drinking or anything else. Abortion isn't birth "control", it is eliminating a newly formed life.
Republicans have started to blur the lines between birth control and abortion in the hopes of making it harder for American women to get both birth control and abortions. Missouri lawmakers recently debated whether they needed to restrict Medicaid coverage of birth control and limit payments to Planned Parenthood. Yes, as the Kansas City Star reported, lawmakers there spent hours last week in a discussion that “resembled a remedial sex-education course.” It was a tricky play, attacking birth control as a way to attack abortion.
“What’s been happening in Missouri last week should serve as a warning sign for what’s to come,” says Alexis McGill Johnson, president of the Planned Parenthood Action Fund. “We’re already hearing members of the U.S. Congress spread the same falsehoods we’ve seen in Missouri, conflating medications that prevent pregnancy (birth control and emergency contraception) with medications that end pregnancy.” McGill makes a valuable point—that what happened in Missouri is not isolated, and in many ways it’s part of a Republican playbook for the future. Just ask women in Georgia, Florida, Alabama, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Mississippi, where abortion access is so limited that women have to drive hundreds of miles to end a pregnancy.
One can say all and more about Trump's personality, his character, but the bottom line is --- He was a good president, he accomplished, and he represented the people . All the people.
I need not make list as some do here, I need not compiled a list of now proven lies that Democrats and left media concocted to
slander this man. Because it would be futile to even try to undo what they did. And ultimately it has all come back at this point to bite them in the ass.
So, no I can't dispute his history in the business world, his flings with women, or the fact that he said what he felt, and said t when he felt like saying it.
I can say I felt safe, was prospering, and felt confident in the way the country was headed, I felt respected by my Government. None of which I can claim to feel today.
The country is a hot mess... You need not apologize for anything. However, maybe you should reevaluate why you dislike Trump. Was it the man you disliked? Did you dislike his job performance? I separated the two. Because I feel the bottom line is job performance.
It would appear you feel a president must win a personality contest and hell with job performance. In my view, Biden has failed on both counts.
How did I come by my opinion --- read your comment? It's all about the man's prior mistakes, his what you perceive as a faulty character.
I don't see anything, nothing to do with his job performance. So is a character, and personality what you find most important in a president?
It would be wonderful to get the whole package, but it seems very much impossible.
And by the by, how is Biden working out for you? For me, I dislike the man's agenda, his ideologies (yet I don't think what he is portraying are his own), and feel the country is in the toilet. His personality aside, his job performance is poor. I dislike all of that, but I have no feelings of dislike for his person. Presidents come and go, what's left should be what they did for the country, the people. In the end, it matters little how well they were liked.Trump's deficits are in his character and that is far more significant and serious than just a difference in personality in my opinion. I am more concerned with the innate motives and values of a person over the face that he or she presents to the public. The things that he did from my early examples were not merely divisive and partisan, but underhanded and dastardly. His petty vindictive nature is a character flaw, that is something that I don't need in someone who wants to be my leader.
-------
Key Differences Between Personality and Character
The significant differences between personality and character are discussed in the following points:
Personality refers to the combination of qualities, attitude and behaviour, that makes a person distinct from others. Character refers to a set of moral and mental qualities and beliefs, that makes a person different from others.
Personality implies Who we seem to be? On the other hand, the character represents Who we actually are?
Personality is a set of personal qualities whereas character is a collection of mental and moral characteristics of an individual.
The personality is the mask or the identity of a person. Conversely, the character is the learned behaviour.
Personality is subjective, but the character is objective.
Personality is the outer appearance and behaviour of a person. At the same time, character indicates the traits of a person which are hidden from sight.
The personality of an individual may change with time. However, the character lasts longer.
Character requires validation and support of society. In contrast, the personality, does not need validation and support of the society.
------
I have a great deal to dislike about Trump, and that has not changed and has been exacerbated by his silly rants about how the election was stolen from him. That is not leadership nor acceptance of our rules of governance. Reminds me of Adolph Hitler and his complaints that Jews and the German intelligentsia "stabbed Germany in the back" after the First World War.
What Trump did in my examples, were more than just "mistakes".
In your opinion, Trumps job performance was exemplary, in mine he set the standard for an ever more divisive nation and his job performance as judged by the voters in 2020, fell short. In a big way, I can count on my fingers the number of prior presidents that were denied a second term. Trump is amongst them, is that mere coincidence?
Character is always important in a leader, while personality has wider variation within the bounds of acceptability.
As for Biden, he is stonewalled by a couple of DINOs in Congress, if it wasn't for them, his agenda would have occurred with far more certainly and had been executed more quickly. But, Prices at the pump has come down, so the sky, in fact, has not fallen.A good reply, much to agree on here.
Then there was that last paragraph... bleh.
Biden has a long way to go before his time is up... I wouldn't write home about gas prices going down, or anything else, inflation set another record last month, Biden has promised food shortages and famine, higher gas prices to come, so don't start singing his praises yet.I give up... we have so little in common that it would be futile to reply.
I hear ya. We are supposed to jump on the Trump hate bandwagon and repeat the lies, all while pretending we currently have a fine, upstanding, example of leadership in the White House. Nope, not playing that game.
It is obvious the line in the sand is deep, and I won't give even a smidge of my common sense to play the game that many are playing acting as all is well in the Country, and we have a man in the White House that is capable to make decisions for the country. He is visibly confused, he admitted on several locations he is being told what to say.
This entire situation disgusts me. I am ashamed to think many in America have come to be so unintelligent, that they would be so manipulated.You people should let Trump alone when you don't have good words to say on his person. My question: is Trump still in the oval office?
That didn't start with President Trump. It started with President Obama. Disparaging is one thing, paying for false accusations and trying to hide her hand? Candidate Hilary and the famous "dossier". qualify for that one, along with trying to hide her classified emails on her private server. Oh, yes! There is skullduggery enough to wallpaper the White House several times over. Will 2024 be any different? Not if the same rabble run again.
I am not as gracious as Faye, simply based on her last 2 comments, those that are adhering to the ideals and values, and the mainstreaming of them that is associated with today's Republicans are simply no good and pose a serious danger to democracy in general and to our manner of Governance, specifically.
Communication and rapport is more and more becoming just a waste of breath and time.People know best why they do abortion, as well as birth control. But as long as humantty remain, purpose abortion(the digress talk here) and birth control will not go away. Abortion seriously will continue to divide. Even if a woman desre pragnancy, natural abortion normally occur. But that's not a license to kill a fetus at any stage of development. Let's look at it this way. Do we purposefully 'kill' the sperm, or ova, or the zygote? Or do we usually kill the fused gamate? But well we target the fetus.
You are right Ken, right and wrong do not matter when Europe is on the threshold of destruction. It will be sad to watch in my lifetime the destruction of an ancient civilization. All this could have been avoided if the Russian demand for security had been accepted and the eastward expansion of NATO stopped.
I agree, but why did Putin have to be so demanding? What was the real threat? Were his fears justified? Was the west and NATO such a force to be reckoned with, as far as their influence on Russia?
Europe, seems to be the hotest sports in the world, where war is birth.
That sounds like a great subject for an article on soapboxie. Why are world wars started in Europe?
Thank you. I'll began a story on that. And, I've turn that quetion into a sentense: 'Why World Wars Started in Europe'. Seriously, I've taken the title on hubpages, write a summary and an introductim on paper. I'm good to go on it.
Last 2world wars originated in Europe and I see no reason why WW 3will NOT occur in Europe and lead to the destruction . Thanks to the EU leaders and Biden.
I am still coming to terms with the misinformation we have been sold here in America.
Not that I don't know how real the unending deception is, but I think I still get stunned by how they get away with it.
But then again I say on here that Zelenskyy in March 2021 adopted into law the decision to reconquer Crimea by force.
I say he was building up the Ukraine Army, Artillery, APCs, Missiles, and had some 60,000 amassed along the Donbas region, I point out that it was Ukraine that started a massive Artillery campaign on the 16th of February, which triggered the Russian response.
And nothing.
No surprise, no questioning.
We've been fed a bunch of lies, once again... and people just swallow it.Military exercises, even if it were taking place on the Moon, are very suscipious. It generated fear. So, Putin's reaction is a tip of the iceberge...but a very dangerous move indeed.
Following the tangent of your comments, I looked around a bit, and am only speaking from that shallow pool. but . . .
It looks like it might have been Poroshenko's Parliamentary authority to begin operations to reclaim the breakaway territories that kicked off Putin's long-term plan. It seems that is when the Russian support and presence began seriously increasing.
In the perspective that establishing a landbridge to Crimea was Putin's long-term plan after successfully taking Crimea, I think Poroshenko's actions were more threatening than Zelenski's
That makes sense to me because if the breakaway regions remained as they were—primarily under Russian-supported control, then I think Putin could easily defend against the recapture of Crimea with 'official' Russian support, and, a seemingly legitimate claim to be protecting itself.
That doesn't mean that your Ukrainian position points aren't valid, but just that they were Putin's legitimation of his efforts, not the impetus. Pres. Zelenski's actions only appear to have accelerated the plans, not prompted them.
GATotally agree on Putin's planning and operations.
However, if in 2014 there isn't an insurrection and overthrow of the government, Crimea never secedes.
If there is never a decision by Zelenskyy to retake Crimea by force, and the buildup of forces to do so thereafter, there is no Russian invasion into Ukraine (at worst the Donbas conflict escalates).
Easily "the West" has half the blame for everything that has transpired since 2014.
Some hours ago, I posted that europe was the birth place of wars. May world war111 not happen to destroy the earth, civilization and humanity.
Related Discussions
- 7
Is Putin going to start World War III?
by Kathleen Odenthal 2 years ago
Is Putin going to start World War III?As Vladimir Putin invades Ukraine, violates G8 regulations, and continues to push the bounds of his neighbors and wahtever allies he has left, I am left wondering if we are about to begin WWIII?
- 17
Will the crisis in Ukraine escalate to World War III?
by Jennifer Arnett 10 years ago
Will the crisis in Ukraine escalate to World War III?
- 35
Are we in or heading towards a third world war?
by days leaper 11 years ago
As some-one said to the question. "Is any-one else in the west fed up of america's war mongering?" that 'we're already in a third world war due to all the skirmishes that the major powers are involved in'. But does this constitute a world war, or a pre cursor to a world...
- 17
BTW the Ukraine war just Escalated, again
by Ken Burgess 4 months ago
Ukraine’s Invasion of Russia Could Bring a Quicker End to the Warhttps://foreignpolicy.com/2024/08/09/ku … otiations/Ukraine Changed the Course of the War with KURSK Offensivehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAPs6V5Nv_AWhat will be the response... what will Russia do now that the war is in...
- 256
A Warning From Biden Or Just Another Confused Statement?
by Sharlee 23 months ago
Biden on Thursday when addressing the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee let loose with this --- This statement appears to be when Biden went off script. He was closing and decided to add this ....."So I guess — I said I was not going to talk very long; I’ve already talked too...
- 75
Biden Lobbed Threats At Putin
by Sharlee 20 months ago
Biden warns Putin against using nuclear weapons in Ukraine: 'Don't'Biden said the US response to any further potential attack by Russia would be 'consequential'President Biden warned Russian President Vladimir Putin against using nuclear weapons in Ukraine in a television interview while declining...