Jump to content

Politics 2016 (election edition)

lost highway

By lost highway,
in Tongue-Tied Lightning

 Share Followers 2

Recommended Posts

LouieB

LouieB

Posted
Posted

The closest thing we have to a middle of the road candidate in this election is Hillary Clinton (and boy is she smack dab in the middle.) . In a normal year Hillary would be a shoe in (she probably is anyway) because she espouses extremely mainstream ideas and attitudes, but if the disgruntled Bernie supporters (if he doesn't win) decide to stay home on election day this election could be remarkably close. 

 

Everyday I read the paper and I'm simply amazed at how crazy the GOP is.  Then I scan the internet and realize that the Democrats are as fractured as the GOP really. 

 

LouieB

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 2.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Posted Images

Doug C

Doug C

Posted
Posted

Speaking of crazies: Oregon Occupier Countersues For $666 Billion, Citing 'Works Of The Devil'.

 

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/02/18/467204403/oregon-occupier-countersues-for-666-billion-citing-works-of-the-devil

 

I'm certain that, if asked, most of the Republican candidates would support her in some way.

Link to post
Share on other sites
KevinG

KevinG

Posted
Posted

Can anyone tell where Bernie going to get the money to pay for free education?

 

You could probably go to http://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-education/

 

And read this:

 

 

 

But nothing is “free”!  How are you going to pay for this?

There are various measures that have been proposed to cover these changes. In the College for All Act, which Bernie sponsored, a “Robin Hood” tax on Wall Street would be implemented – a 0.5 percent speculation fee on investment houses, hedge funds, and other stock trades, as well as a 0.1 percent fee on bonds and a 0.005 percent fee charged on derivatives. These very small taxes on the financial sector would completely cover the cost of providing free higher education to all students who are willing and able to attend college or university.

Moreover, the cost of not providing higher education must also be factored into consideration. A more educated workforce is likely to lead to higher incomes and a higher GDP for the nation, which will lead to increased prosperity, wealth, and consumer spending in its own right. In addition, families and individuals will spend their income freely instead of saving it for college tuition or using it to pay back student loans. This rise in consumer spending will also likely have a positive effect on the nation’s GDP.

 
Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr. Heartbreak

Mr. Heartbreak

Posted
Posted

Decency aside, fair enough, although I hope the author won't be upset if dies and people on the right celebrate. Myself, I find it petty and unbecoming.

Oh, they will. In most cases, I would agree with you, but Scalia's many racist and homophobic statements, and his death penalty fetish, did actual harm to real people. He wasn't just some right wing d-bag like Ted Nugent; he was a Supreme Court Justice.
Link to post
Share on other sites
KevinG

KevinG

Posted
Posted

Decency aside, fair enough, although I hope the author won't be upset if dies and people on the right celebrate. Myself, I find it petty and unbecoming.

I guess who on the left would that be? I can't think of one of prominence as Scalia that would cause a similar grave dancing situation. Scalia did say some pretty terrible things, not to say the grave dancing is justified, but just because he died doesn't mean we have to make him a saint.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hixter

Hixter

Posted
Posted

just because he died doesn't mean we have to make him a saint.

There's quite a difference between beatifying someone and exhibiting a little common decency toward a dead person.

 

Hixter, who's on your short list?

Of politicians whose deaths I would celebrate because they sit on the other side of the aisle from me? Nobody. Not a one. I can't see it ever happening.

 

Barack Obama has ordered airstrikes which have killed thousands of men, women, and children. Hillary Clinton has also had a hand in it and both are on record as having been opposed to same-sex marriage. Would cheering their deaths be acceptable? I consider their performance in office to be quite poor, but I won't dance on their graves when they pass.

Link to post
Share on other sites
KevinG

KevinG

Posted
Posted

There's quite a difference between beatifying someone and exhibiting a little common decency toward a dead person.

 

Understood, but it seems like there is an aversion to pointing out the man's many faults just because he died.  He was a giant asshole while alive.   I disagreed with him on almost every stance he took.  Am I glad he is dead, no, of course not.  I do not take glee in anyone's death.  But I will not shed a tear for him either.  The question remains do we have to treat him with kit gloves and not remember for who he was and what he did.  His record stands, his actions stand on their merit.  I suspect we have very different views and attitudes towards Justice Scalia.  But just because he is dead doesn't mean I have to forget what a giant jerk he was and doesn't mean I don't get to call him whatever name I see fit.     

 

Of politicians whose deaths I would celebrate because they sit on the other side of the aisle from me? Nobody. Not a one. I can't see it ever happening.

 

I guess my original question was specifically aimed at whose grave would you dance upon, it was in general.  Whose death can you see the Right celebrating?  My guess is Bill Clinton, possibly Hillary (and especially if she wins in Nov).  But I doubt it would be as public as this one.  I guess I just don't see a character as divisive on the left as Scalia was.    

Link to post
Share on other sites
bleedorange

bleedorange

Posted
Posted

Understood, but it seems like there is an aversion to pointing out the man's many faults just because he died.  He was a giant asshole while alive.   I disagreed with him on almost every stance he took.  Am I glad he is dead, no, of course not.  I do not take glee in anyone's death.  But I will not shed a tear for him either.  The question remains do we have to treat him with kit gloves and not remember for who he was and what he did.  His record stands, his actions stand on their merit.  I suspect we have very different views and attitudes towards Justice Scalia.  But just because he is dead doesn't mean I have to forget what a giant jerk he was and doesn't mean I don't get to call him whatever name I see fit.     

 

You knew him? Wow. Because from all accounts of those who did know him, he seemed to be a pretty good guy. Even those who were diametrically opposed to him on many issues. Of course, it's easy to reduce someone to just his worst qualities in order to aid in your lack of empathy. Not to mention the fact that he was one of the most influential and important Supreme Court justices of the last 50 years.

 

Dancing on anyone's grave is grotesque.

Link to post
Share on other sites
KevinG

KevinG

Posted
Posted

You knew him? Wow. Because from all accounts of those who did know him, he seemed to be a pretty good guy. Even those who were diametrically opposed to him on many issues. Of course, it's easy to reduce someone to just his worst qualities in order to aid in your lack of empathy. Not to mention the fact that he was one of the most influential and important Supreme Court justices of the last 50 years.

 

Dancing on anyone's grave is grotesque.

 

Of course, I didn't know him (and nor did you BTW) and I am sure that if I did, I may feel differently.  I knew he was really good friends with the Notorious RBG.  But I have no reference on how he was personally.  I only have the reference of his public statements.  

 

If I was at restaurant and I overheard someone saying some of the statements Scalia said, I would consider that person an asshole, racist, homophobe.  Yes that person may be a super nice guy to his friends (who may have different views from him or whatever), have a family, etc., but that doesn't mean he didn't say or mean those things.  In my world view I judge that person by what I know.  Sure, if I heard anecdotally about what a nice guy he was, it may change my mind, but it still does not change the fact he said some pretty terrible things.  Sure I am taking him at his worst qualities, but that is my interactions with him.  It is really hard to overcome and see the good in someone, when they so vehemently disagree with your core beliefs.  

 

Everyone has opinions about people they have never met, solely based upon their words or their actions.  On this forum (quite recently in fact) I have been called a dick jerk, based upon my words.  Rightful so, maybe.  I am sure many here have opinions about me, about my character and as a person.  But if you ask my friends and family they would say I am a kind, loving, father and loyal friend.  Does that mean the opinions about me are invalid?   Does that mean to DougC I am not dick jerk?  Of course not.  He is free to form his opinion about me based upon my interactions with him.  Is his opinion correct?  Depends on who you ask.  

 

I have empathy, I have empathy for Scalia's friends, his colleagues and his family.   I feel for anyone who lost a person in their life.  It is truly sad when a person dies, especially when it was unexpected.  I have respect for the office he held.  I have respect for the influence he had in the court.  I do not, nor will I, have respect for the statements and Decisions he made.  Often times when someone dies, we quickly gloss over the terrible things that they did or said.  We remember only the good, for a regular person that is probably for the best.  But Scalia, because of his position and influence, cannot be remembered just as the good friend, etc..  He has to be remembered for his words and actions.  This is why I call him an asshole and I will remember him as such.  It is my opinion, and like an asshole everyone has one. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug C

Doug C

Posted
Posted

In the interest of factuality, this statement (from an above post) is inaccurate: "On this forum (quite recently in fact) I have been called a dick jerk, based upon my words." 

 My actual words were "there is ample evidence that you might be what the kids call a dick. I'd just say that you seem to be a bit of a jerk."

 

"You might be", is not "you are", and "a bit of a jerk", is not a "jerk". I did not call you a dick-with-a-line-through-it jerk. I don't even know how to do that put a line through a word thing. It's pretty cool though.

Link to post
Share on other sites
KevinG

KevinG

Posted
Posted

In the interest of factuality, this statement (from an above post) is inaccurate: "On this forum (quite recently in fact) I have been called a dick jerk, based upon my words." 

 My actual words were "there is ample evidence that you might be what the kids call a dick. I'd just say that you seem to be a bit of a jerk."

 

"You might be", is not "you are", and "a bit of a jerk", is not a "jerk". I did not call you a dick-with-a-line-through-it jerk. I don't even know how to do that put a line through a word thing. It's pretty cool though.

 

semantics aside, my point is you have an opinion about me.  Correct or not, but it is no less valid to you.  It is based upon my interactions with you.  I don't see why my opinion of Justice Scalia is met with such scorn, because of his death, the position he held and anecdotal evidence.  

 

and BTW the line through is just a text formatting thing, you'll see it on the top of text box.  You can do all kinds of fun stuff like indent, bullet, sub script, super script.  Fun fun fun.   

Link to post
Share on other sites
bleedorange

bleedorange

Posted
Posted

I would like to think that internet postings, especially on this board where the conversations tend to be pretty intelligent and respectful, would not form the basis of anyone's opinion of anyone else. I fail to see the benefit of going around thinking people you've never met are dicks, jerks, or assholes.

 

As for Scalia, his blind spot and seeming contempt for LGBT issues have always been troubling to reconcile with the fact that I respect him and admire him as a justice. Of course, I have to reconcile those same things when it comes to some family members and close friends. I don't think he was racist, which is an extremely loaded and harmful term to use towards someone based on oral argument comments that came from a study contained in a submitted brief in the case. Part of oral arguments is to draw out important critiques and defenses of theories of a case. He also authored many opinions protecting criminal defendants regarding the 4th and 6th Amendments...illegal searches, the Confrontation Clause, etc.

 

I hate to see anyone painted with such a broad brush, which merely overlooks the good and not-so-good of anyone's public career.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Followers 2
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...