2017 Republican Thread

[Soxbadger]

BS. With all of the equal rights pushes, you can't talk about things like gay rights, and then try to disqualify someone's believably level because of something like that. It is hypocrisy.

 

Not sure what you mean, but if someone pushes "conspiracy" theories without basis, I think that it hurts their overall credibility. Not sure what that has to do with gay rights.

[StrangeSox]

You are the one trying to claim that someone's lifestyle choices are so awful that it should disqualify them from being allowed to be a believable person.

It's not about lifestyle choices it's about believing crazy things

[StrangeSox]

I don't care if he eats his own sperm or wears diapers or is into bondage or whatever. It's that he believes doing so gives him mental powers and some sort of power over women that makes him ridiculous. Plus pizzagate. Oh and the time he said it was good trayvon Martin was killed before he could rape someone.

Edited April 4, 2017 by StrangeSox

[CrimsonWeltall]

BS. With all of the equal rights pushes, you can't talk about things like gay rights, and then try to disqualify someone's believably level because of something like that. It is hypocrisy.

 

This is one of the worst comparisons I've ever seen.

[southsider2k5]

This is one of the worst comparisons I've ever seen.

 

Of course it is. Tolerance is only for those who are accepted.

[StrangeSox]

You don't get it. It's not about "lifestyle" it's about believing ridiculous and stupid things.

[caulfield12]

I think the Republicans are simply getting chippy about being called cruel/heartless/racist, etc., day after day...and also being associated with Trump's actions, but they have to lie in the bed they've made.

 

There's a desire to draw false equivalencies...some have validity, some don't.

 

When Harry Reid first invoked the nuclear option in 2013, it's because the Republicans as a policy were blocking or threatening to refuse to hold hearings on numerous appointments. The Republicans/McConnell got their revenge with Merrick Garland, and now the Democrats are blocking someone who in normal circumstances would have passed through quite easily...although the freezing trucker case has gained a lot of traction with the Democratic base.

 

Which brings us back to the biggest problem Dems have with Republicans (other than not THINKING for themselves since Trump), which is that the average Republican doesn't care about that trucker because they can't empathize with his situation, never having faced it themselves. They don't care about those with pre-existing conditions or on Medicaid because they've always had the best insurance and best doctors available. It's an ideological war about deconstructing government, regardless of those most middle class and poor citizens who are harmed as a result.

 

At any rate, this is just the 3rd iteration of this movement (being led by Bannon at the moment)....it started under Ronald Reagan, then Clinton and the Dems acquiesced in order to gain power from 1992-2000 and now the pendulum's swung back again after Bush/Obama both set policies leading to Big Government becoming a thing again.

Edited April 5, 2017 by caulfield12

[Big Hurtin]

You don't get it. It's not about "lifestyle" it's about believing ridiculous and stupid things.

Well, for some, that is their lifestyle.

[Reddy]

BS. With all of the equal rights pushes, you can't talk about things like gay rights, and then try to disqualify someone's believably level because of something like that. It is hypocrisy.

it is in no way earthly way hypocrisy. what are you smoking right now?

[Reddy]

Of course it is. Tolerance is only for those who are accepted.

Bro that comparison was truly Reddy level. Maybe worse.

[caulfield12]

http://www.businessinsider.com/jamie-dimon...f-the-us-2017-4

 

 

"Over the last 16 years, we have spent trillions of dollars on wars when we could have been investing that money productively. (I'm not saying that money didn't need to be spent; but every dollar spent on battle is a dollar that can't be put to use elsewhere.)

Difficult to find bi-partisan agreement here.

 

"Since 2010, when the government took over student lending, direct government lending to students has gone from approximately $200 billion to more than $900 billion — creating dramatically increased student defaults and a population that is rightfully angry about how much money they owe, particularly since it reduces their ability to get other credit.

Difficult to find a solution that doesn't favor the big banks.

 

"Our nation's healthcare costs are essentially twice as much per person vs. most other developed nations.

Has been an issue on the national agenda for going on 23 years and still no progress in terms of a compromise between the two parties.

 

"It is alarming that approximately 40% (this is an astounding 300,000 students each year) of those who receive advanced degrees in science, technology, engineering and math at American universities are foreign nationals with no legal way of staying here even when many would choose to do so. We are forcing great talent overseas by not allowing these young people to build their dreams here.

One area of hope. It would seem pretty simple to issue an executive order prioritizing American workers (if available) for those STEM (Sci/Tech/Engineeering/Math) positions, but that a secondary priority would be on providing a path to citizenship for those foreign graduates in agreed upon "high need" areas...but not just filling out the bottom end of tech jobs by hiring foreigners for 25-50% of what they would pay Americans.

 

"Felony convictions for even minor offenses have led, in part, to 20 million American citizens having a criminal record — and this means they often have a hard time getting a job. (There are six times more felons in the United States than in Canada.)

There should be a way to work together, but just the mention of this topic is going to be perceived as overlapping with the (illegal) immigration argument, which is obviously a polarizing one for both sides...and then the Trump administration so far has shown zero likelihood of relaxing the criminal justice system's stance vis a vis drug policy/punishment.

 

"The inability to reform mortgage markets has dramatically reduced mortgage availability. We estimate that mortgages alone would have been more than $1 trillion higher had we had healthier mortgage markets. Greater mortgage access would have led to more homebuilding and additional jobs and investments, which also would have driven additional growth."

Another area it's close to impossible to imagine Big Banks not coming out ahead.

[CrimsonWeltall]

Of course it is. Tolerance is only for those who are accepted.

 

The judgment was on credibility.

 

A person who promotes conspiracy theories and pseudoscience lacks credibility.

A person who is gay does not.

[caulfield12]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization...hemical_Weapons

 

The Obama administration asked to use force (without putting extensive numbers of combat troops on the ground).

 

So Trump's position is basically "America First" but he wants a 10% increase in defense spending...to what end? He's already blaming the Obama administration for the chemical attack in Syria, but he's clearly against intervention due to the lack of strategic resources in play there.

 

So he basically wants to just defer to Russia and China making all the decisions with global ramifications for the rest of his term in the Middle East...unless the US is under threat of attack? What about Iran? And the ISIS plan?

 

 

Seems the only area of the world he currently wants to engage is North Korea...but he's boxed in there to either economic sanctions (which clearly haven't worked) or direct military intervention, which is going to spark a conflict with China in all likelihood.

 

So far, we have Yemen, Mosul and now this chemical attack on the Trump watch. Yet we're 70 days into the new administration and leaders like Merkel and Abe have no idea what the American policy even is.

 

 

[StrangeSox]

It's a sign of having a pretty f***ed up mind/worldview. He's also a big #pizzagate idiot. These are sub-WND level "sources."

 

He's now saying the Syrian gas attack is a "hoax"

 

 

https://twitter.com/mattdpearce/status/850082560164077568

Matt Pearce‏Verified account

@mattdpearce

 

The guy recently getting praise from Kellyanne Conway and Don Trump, Jr., has now moved on to saying the Syria gassing was a hoax

[caulfield12]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/target-boyco...-141019006.html

 

Thought Greg would enjoy seeing his bathroom argument being validated by the Target boycott, which has cost them millions of dollars, and started from a single unauthorized Target corporate blog post (but didn't go through the CEO).

[EvilMonkey]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/target-boyco...-141019006.html

 

Thought Greg would enjoy seeing his bathroom argument being validated by the Target boycott, which has cost them millions of dollars, and started from a single unauthorized Target corporate blog post (but didn't go through the CEO).

Cornell didn't approve the post, according to The Journal, but he supported the policy in interviews after it was published.

 

"We took a stance, and we are going to continue to embrace our belief of diversity and inclusion," Cornell said in an interview with CNBC in May

 

 

May not have approved it when it happened, but sure stood by it. Until it hurt, now trying to backtrack a bit.

[greg775]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/target-boyco...-141019006.html

 

Thought Greg would enjoy seeing his bathroom argument being validated by the Target boycott, which has cost them millions of dollars, and started from a single unauthorized Target corporate blog post (but didn't go through the CEO).

One of your links made my computer go bats*** crazy so I didn't open it. What did it say? What's my bathroom argument?

Edited April 7, 2017 by greg775

[caulfield12]

One of your links made my computer go bats*** crazy so I didn't open it. What did it say? What's my bathroom argument?

 

That you're essentially justified in feeling threatened, along with huge but "silent" numbers of fellow Americans who are offended.

[greg775]

That you're essentially justified in feeling threatened, along with huge but "silent" numbers of fellow Americans who are offended.

I don't really understand the big deal. I think if you have a male private part you pretty much need to go to the men's room. I mean I know some intelligent people that still think Bruce Jenner's deal was/is a publicity stunt. I don't really have strong opinions on this but just think if tomorrow I wanted to prank the world and said I identified as a female and wanted to use the women's restroom. is that right? is that proper? I'm just saying it's very easy to fool the world and I have no business being in the women's room.

That's all I'm saying.

[caulfield12]

It all depends on your belief that gender-identification is a conscious choice and not a genetic predisposition.

 

With all the discrimination that still exists in society today...try to imagine a son or daughter deliberately provoking confrontation and "being threatening to others," why would any sane/logical/rational person choose that difficult path? To suffer the stings of a largely prejudiced society (outside of the coastal areas of the US) and force their parents/family/friends to suffer? To get back at God?

 

It's also because very few who share your beliefs are willing to argue them publicly, knowing the argument will at some point devolve into a religion/faith-based one.

 

 

[CrimsonWeltall]

With all the discrimination that still exists in society today...try to imagine a son or daughter deliberately provoking confrontation and "being threatening to others," why would any sane/logical/rational person choose that difficult path?

 

Isn't it commonly argued that transgender people ARE suffering from a form of mental illness? It's certainly not obvious to me (or the rest of the population with no clinical psychiatry/psychology background) that there can't be mental illness in play. Now, that's absolutely not to say that transgender people should be mistreated in any way, nor that accepting them for how they want to be accepted isn't a far superior option to trying to make them be something they don't want to be.

[Kyyle23]

I don't really understand the big deal. I think if you have a male private part you pretty much need to go to the men's room. I mean I know some intelligent people that still think Bruce Jenner's deal was/is a publicity stunt. I don't really have strong opinions on this but just think if tomorrow I wanted to prank the world and said I identified as a female and wanted to use the women's restroom. is that right? is that proper? I'm just saying it's very easy to fool the world and I have no business being in the women's room.

That's all I'm saying.

 

The big deal is the one you are making. These people just want to take a piss or s*** and you want them to make sure they walk into the "correct" bathroom due to which private parts you have.

 

And it's even more interesting that this comes from the same guy who wouldn't even walk into the same subway with someone who was either transgendered or a cross dresser. So, instead you want to share a bathroom with a cross dresser or transgendered man. Makes total sense

[StrangeSox]

Isn't it commonly argued that transgender people ARE suffering from a form of mental illness? It's certainly not obvious to me (or the rest of the population with no clinical psychiatry/psychology background) that there can't be mental illness in play. Now, that's absolutely not to say that transgender people should be mistreated in any way, nor that accepting them for how they want to be accepted isn't a far superior option to trying to make them be something they don't want to be.

 

I could be wrong, but while there may be some who 'argue' that I don't think it's what's supported by any modern psychology or physiology. Granted my understanding of this comes from a NOVA episode on prenatal development, but I saw recently that the latest research believes that the development "triggers" for lack of a better work that establish our sex and those that establish our gender in our brain occur separately and several weeks apart.

[CrimsonWeltall]

I could be wrong, but while there may be some who 'argue' that I don't think it's what's supported by any modern psychology or physiology. Granted my understanding of this comes from a NOVA episode on prenatal development, but I saw recently that the latest research believes that the development "triggers" for lack of a better work that establish our sex and those that establish our gender in our brain occur separately and several weeks apart.

 

Oh I don't doubt prenatal development could be the primary cause at all, but that wouldn't preclude it from being in the realm of mental illness. I mean, a mental illness is basically a mental pattern that causes some kind of negative effect on the person who has it. If, as a result of how your brain is set up, your mental self-image of your gender is in contradiction to your physical sex, and this results in significant stress/anxiety/confusion/etc, that's mental illness, no?

 

As to that episode (which I'll look for), wouldn't biological sex be established conception when your chromosomes are determined by which sperm fertilizes the egg?

 

Also, can you elaborate on what the episode was defining as gender, and what the trigger was? Obviously they must not have be taking the position sometimes argued that gender is a cultural creation. Something more like a typically "masculine" vs "feminine" brain chemistry?

[StrangeSox]

Oh I don't doubt prenatal development could be the primary cause at all, but that wouldn't preclude it from being in the realm of mental illness. I mean, a mental illness is basically a mental pattern that causes some kind of negative effect on the person who has it. If, as a result of how your brain is set up, your mental self-image of your gender is in contradiction to your physical sex, and this results in significant stress/anxiety/confusion/etc, that's mental illness, no?

 

As to that episode (which I'll look for), wouldn't biological sex be established conception when your chromosomes are determined by which sperm fertilizes the egg?

 

Also, can you elaborate on what the episode was defining as gender, and what the trigger was? Obviously they must not have be taking the position sometimes argued that gender is a cultural creation. Something more like a typically "masculine" vs "feminine" brain chemistry?

 

I'll look for the episode too, it might actually have just been a NOVA-like PBS episode on Netflix now that I think about it. But as for the bolded, no. It's not exactly common, but there are all sorts of cases of mixed chromosomes. Far from an expert, but I think epigenetics plays a role in both sex and gender determination.

 

edit: it was this series from PBS 9 months that made you which is available on Netflix. The episode about the transgendered girl is episode 2.

Edited April 7, 2017 by StrangeSox