OMG Politics, I'm over it already.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Nay to Pelosi. She’s lost the house twice already, that should be enough. Pelosi is as toxic as Clinton in much of America. The dems aren’t going to win back the house by making their leader an unpopular California liberal whose wealth generates conspiracy theories. They must have somebody from a city in Minnesota or Ohio who could take the leadership position.
 
GomezAddams said:
Second, you are attempting to downplay the negative aspects of Trumps flag burning law by comparison to Clinton's support of the 2005 flag burning law. The 2005 law makes it a crime to burn a flag primarily to incite violence. Big difference there.
Click to expand...

True, the intent to was prevent the desecration of the U.S. flag to be used to incite violence & acknowledged it may still be protected political protest under the 1st A but at the end of the day, that bill never made it out of committe for the same reason those tweets are nonsense, it would have been declared unconstitutional before the ink was dry on the signatures.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/109/s1911/text

Edit: it's often been reported that the intent of the bill was to get the argument before the supreme court to more narrowly define what conditions of flag burning would be considered protected speech and what is not; it always left non-violent political protest protected.

In the broadest - only read the headlines sense, yes it's the same thing as suggesting jail or losing citizenship for burning a flag.

In reality it's more than a little bit different.
 
Last edited:
GomezAddams said:
Now you are saying something different. First, you claimed that both sides were misrepresenting facts, and when I asked for examples from the Democrats, you offer Democrats being outraged over Trumps flag burning law as an example.

First, I don't think there's "outrage" on the part of any Democrats. There is a pointing out that Trump is disingenuous in his support of such a law since the Supreme Court has already ruled flag burning as protected speech.

Second, you are attempting to downplay the negative aspects of Trumps flag burning law by comparison to Clinton's support of the 2005 flag burning law. The 2005 law makes it a crime to burn a flag primarily to incite violence. Big difference there.

Second, Democrats may have expressed a negative opinion, but they haven't misrepresented any facts in expressing said opinion.

Bannon has discussed genetic superiority of some races over others, and when asked how that relates to his black long time assistant, he replied, "that's different - she's family". He has suggested that only property owners should vote. He has said that Breitbart is a "platform for the alt-right". So while Bannon may not be a card carrying KKK member, his publicly stated views are certainly troubling for someone in the White house staff.
Click to expand...



I really don't see the point in this but my post was in reference to people on this forum and social media who make statements that are ridiculous, typically siting something inaccurate or out of context. I stated basically that these types of rants existed on both sides of the issue. And there was some "outrage" displayed on this thread that came out of the flag thing. And that is all I was referring too. Apparently a bad idea to point it out but someone drank all the coffee here so I was bored. I wasn't making a statement about Democrats using lies to their advantage. But to think that the Democrats or any politician hasn't, doesn't or wont use lies to their advantage is as naïve as me thinking we can pull this thing together.

But if we are going to have a healthy discussion, let's talk about the Bannon deal. Your comments got me to do a little reading and from what I can tell, how any of it is interpreted probably depends on what publication you read it from. For example, the statement about genetic superiority was something a former colleague reported that he had said and none of the references to her quote says anything about race. The same articles will then link Trump in because he has said in the past that some people are genetically superior. Specifically he answered a question about can anybody be rich. He said that he thought you had to have some level of genetic intelligence. He must not have been thinking about the Kardashians but I think his point was that not every individual has the genetic capacity. The articles will then go on to say that the concept of genetic superiority is the cornerstone of Nazi-ism and he said some people are superior so therefore he is a white supremacist. Can you not see how that is really creatively filling in blanks to fit a writer's views?

As for the alt right thing, it looks like what he said was it was a platform for several ideologies including alt right but he defined them as young anti-globalist, anti-establishment or something and that he has zero tolerance for racism or anti-Semitism. From that I can't say that he is a white supremacist. Then again he may be the Grand Poo Bah or whatever their leader is called but from the information I have seen, it doesn't appear as so. Regardless, what I haven't seen is what qualifies him to do the job. Of course I read 10 articles and they were all politicized in one direction or the other so there was no discussion about what skills he brings to the table so I guess further research on my part would be necessary if I want that info.
 
Johnny N. said:
my post was in reference to people on this forum
Click to expand...

Something that may facilitate discussion is to be specific about what posts or statement you are trying to address & avoid painting everyone else on the forum with broad generalizations of how they think & feel....which seems to be the very thing you have railing against in some of your previous posts. Edit: I don't mean this as a slight but from what I read in posts from other people participating in the thread, there are a range of opinions and beliefs here so you can't just lump it into 'you guys'
 
As if Trump hasn't already shown enough disrespect to veterans, he's now considering Sarah Palin as a potential secretary of Veterans Affairs? :facepalm: :mad:

fascism_when_fascism_comes_to_america_it_will_be_wrapped_in_the_flag_and_carrying_a_cross_sinclair_lewis.jpg
 
Johnny N. said:
Read your post and tell me how it differs from these statements. Not to single you out but it's my point about anti-Trump rants. Regardless of agreement on any issue, the tactics are the same. Hate and fear sprinkled with some exaggeration and a dash of truth. I just don't know how it is helpful...
Click to expand...

Okay let's state complete facts, instead of upset opinions.

Drumpf's choice for VP is a man who claims that "Gay Conversion Therapy" works.

His pick for Education Secretary has zero teaching experience and an agenda to push private and charter schools, defunding public schools even more.

His choice for head of EPA is someone who believe's global warming is a hoax.

None of his picks are "best and brightest" in their fields to "Make America Great"... they're long time Republican insiders with agendas to dismantle the laws that are already on the books and put more money in the hands of specific private corporations.

I can't comprehend anyone taking any of these decisions in stride or thinking "Give him a chance... it will work out."
 
baimun said:
Okay let's state complete facts, instead of upset opinions.

Drumpf's choice for VP is a man who claims that "Gay Conversion Therapy" works.
Click to expand...

Since we are fact checking I've wondered about this one a bit since anytime Pence is mentioned it inevitably gets brought up. Best info I can find on it while still being lazy is snopes.

http://www.snopes.com/mike-pence-supported-gay-conversion-therapy/

So it doesn't look like he ever directly said "Gay Conversion Therapy works".

If anybody has better info on it post it up. Regardless he still seems like a total douche :lol:
 
baimun said:
Okay let's state complete facts, instead of upset opinions.

Drumpf's choice for VP is a man who claims that "Gay Conversion Therapy" works.

His pick for Education Secretary has zero teaching experience and an agenda to push private and charter schools, defunding public schools even more.

His choice for head of EPA is someone who believe's global warming is a hoax.

None of his picks are "best and brightest" in their fields to "Make America Great"... they're long time Republican insiders with agendas to dismantle the laws that are already on the books and put more money in the hands of specific private corporations.

I can't comprehend anyone taking any of these decisions in stride or thinking "Give him a chance... it will work out."
Click to expand...
if i could "like" this a hundred times....i would :thu:
 
sonik said:
Since we are fact checking I've wondered about this one a bit since anytime Pence is mentioned it inevitably gets brought up. Best info I can find on it while still being lazy is snopes.

http://www.snopes.com/mike-pence-supported-gay-conversion-therapy/

So it doesn't look like he ever directly said "Gay Conversion Therapy works".

If anybody has better info on it post it up. Regardless he still seems like a total douche :lol:
Click to expand...

No, he just wanted to fund efforts to help people change their sexual behavior. Why is this the government's business again?

http://www.politifact.com/californi...true-mike-pence-advocated-conversion-therapy/
 
sonik said:
Since we are fact checking I've wondered about this one a bit since anytime Pence is mentioned it inevitably gets brought up. Best info I can find on it while still being lazy is snopes.

http://www.snopes.com/mike-pence-supported-gay-conversion-therapy/

So it doesn't look like he ever directly said "Gay Conversion Therapy works".

If anybody has better info on it post it up. Regardless he still seems like a total douche :lol:
Click to expand...
ok.....Pence was unequivocally part and parcel to creating a state law that would allow discrimination as part of people's religious beliefs. and the state nearly paid with it's life for it when business either pulled out of the state or cancelled upcoming expeditures in the state and a few threatened to leave the state.
so his stand on LGBT is pretty damn well documented.
 
sonik said:
Since we are fact checking I've wondered about this one a bit since anytime Pence is mentioned it inevitably gets brought up. Best info I can find on it while still being lazy is snopes.

http://www.snopes.com/mike-pence-supported-gay-conversion-therapy/

So it doesn't look like he ever directly said "Gay Conversion Therapy works".

If anybody has better info on it post it up. Regardless he still seems like a total douche :lol:
Click to expand...


From Mike Pence's 2000 Congressional Campaign website via NY Times.

"Congress should support the reauthorization of the Ryan White Care Act only after completion of an audit to ensure that federal dollars were no longer being given to organizations that celebrate and encourage the types of behaviors that facilitate the spreading of the HIV virus. Resources should be directed toward those institutions which provide assistance to those seeking to change their sexual behavior."

WTF.

The first sentence is basically "defund anyplace that teaches safe sex and hands out condoms" while the second is akin to modern day witch hunting.

Resources should be directed towards institutions which provide assistance to those no longer wishing to be narrow minded or ignorant... oh wait... that's called EDUCATION. Pence is against that too, unless they consider teaching creationism and other religious mantra. :facepalm:
 
sonik said:
Yup, it's ridiculous.

However sometimes the government making it their business isn't such a bad thing. i.e. the states banning conversion therapy.
Click to expand...
many states have. and have done so because the entire (non-religious) medical community has recommended doing so.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top