Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
2015/08/25 10:35:11
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
sebster wrote: To give another comparison, back when we debated Bowling for Columbine over and over again, people pointed out that the movie included lots of selective edits. The other side said there’s always editing etc, and there were no incorrect claims made, and if people assumed certain things that’s on them, not on Michael Moore. But at the end of the day there’s a really simple way to determine if something was misleading – people walked out of Bowling for Columbine thinking that Heston had gone to their convention just after Columbine and given the cold dead hands line, but he hadn’t – Moore just tricked people in to thinking that.
Similarly, most people who are claiming outrage over PP think that foetal tissue was harvested for profit, because that’s exactly what the video tricked people in to thinking.
Yes, I posted something about this on the last page and I am 99% sure Whembly missed it because it was a edit and then we flipped pages, so I'll repost:
When called out on it, the video guys did exactly what you describe above.
"We never claimed that was an image of an aborted baby. It's just an illustration of what a baby looks like at the end of the 2nd trimester," he wrote in a statement. "It's interesting that Planned Parenthood and their allies assumed so quickly that's what was happening – are they just grasping at straws, or are their consciences also starting to get to them?"
It's pretty clear that the presentation was dishonest on a few levels.
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
2015/08/25 12:10:26
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Yes, I posted something about this on the last page and I am 99% sure Whembly missed it because it was a edit and then we flipped pages, so I'll repost:
When called out on it, the video guys did exactly what you describe above.
"We never claimed that was an image of an aborted baby. It's just an illustration of what a baby looks like at the end of the 2nd trimester," he wrote in a statement. "It's interesting that Planned Parenthood and their allies assumed so quickly that's what was happening – are they just grasping at straws, or are their consciences also starting to get to them?"
It's pretty clear that the presentation was dishonest on a few levels.
Guess someone forgot Commandment #9 Pretty sure that's an important one
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/08/25 12:10:38
Biden has the name recognition to jump into this now. The only issue is that he's literally running for a third Obama term... which is why when he announces... it would be a genius stroke for him to also announce that Warren would be his VP pick. Warren represent that populist progressive that the young Democratic voters are trending to.
It would be incredibly stupid for any Democrat to push for Warren to vacate her Senate seat.
Why? Her Senate seat is pretty safe for Democrats.
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2015/08/25 16:47:21
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
sebster wrote: To give another comparison, back when we debated Bowling for Columbine over and over again, people pointed out that the movie included lots of selective edits. The other side said there’s always editing etc, and there were no incorrect claims made, and if people assumed certain things that’s on them, not on Michael Moore. But at the end of the day there’s a really simple way to determine if something was misleading – people walked out of Bowling for Columbine thinking that Heston had gone to their convention just after Columbine and given the cold dead hands line, but he hadn’t – Moore just tricked people in to thinking that.
Similarly, most people who are claiming outrage over PP think that foetal tissue was harvested for profit, because that’s exactly what the video tricked people in to thinking.
Yes, I posted something about this on the last page and I am 99% sure Whembly missed it because it was a edit and then we flipped pages, so I'll repost:
When called out on it, the video guys did exactly what you describe above.
"We never claimed that was an image of an aborted baby. It's just an illustration of what a baby looks like at the end of the 2nd trimester," he wrote in a statement. "It's interesting that Planned Parenthood and their allies assumed so quickly that's what was happening – are they just grasping at straws, or are their consciences also starting to get to them?"
It's pretty clear that the presentation was dishonest on a few levels.
No... I didn't miss it. It's just that I'm hesitant to really engage on this subject matter as everyone's mind is made up and there's nothing really to "debate" because i've realized that this topic (as well as topics like religion)... no one is ever changing minds on dakka's OT forums.
We just normally talk at each other and it's almost a self-fullfilling prophesy that things will eventually get out of hand and the MODS will have no recourse then to shut down the current thread.
*shrugs*
But, full disclosure time, here's what *I*, whembly believes.... in quote below, before I address your points, so that you know where I'm coming from:
I believe abortions should only be used if the mother's life is in danger. Unequivocally. Even in that case, all efforts should be made to save the child.
It should never be used as a means of birth control. I truly believe that our current environment allowing this is a stain to our culture. Even in the same vein as our horrid history over slavery.
No before you go off and dismiss me as hating women and all that...
I personally know 4 women in my life who were raped.
One of them had a child.... beforeshe was 18 years old. A beautiful girl whom she chose to keep. A child that I can't fathom now had the mother chosen to abort later.
The other three confided to me that they can't imagine getting abortions either, with exception to taking the morning after pills afterwards.
Even after that, I could be "convinced" to allow the morning after pills, as long as it was administered recently. But other than that... I wish abortions weren't widely used.
I've had folks challenged me whether it's true that this happened... and frankly, I don't care if you do/don't believe me. I'm mature enough to let it go, because, again, this is one of those subject matters that folks already made up their minds.
I've have folks challenged me that if abortions were reduced, be prepared to have your taxes go to single-mom welfares and such. I'm prepared.
I realize that all of this is driven mostly by anecdotal associations and as contributing members in a society, we need to be on-guard with ourselves so that we don't unnecessarily burden our viewpoints to others. However, this is one of those subjects that I will not budge.
Does those viewpoints makes me an extremist in your opinion? Do I care? I just say this a clearly as I can without being too much of a jackass.
whembly <--- zero feths given
With that out of the way, you know where I'm coming from... and I don't really want to engage on the merits of my belief here, because we'll know how it'll end.
With respect to what you posted, I really don't believe that's qualifies as an "edited video" meaning, it's meant to distort what's going on. I believe it's meant to shine more sunlight on the issues at hand, as most people want to keep their heads in the sand... rather than facing the harsh realities.
What PP and StemExpress have done/said should horrify folks.
Politically (as it's germane to this thread), with my stated opposition, I don't believe Federal nor State funding should be going to PP. Those same fundings should be re-directed to community healthcare providers, who can more than adequately provide Women services.
Additionally, since Obamacare is the law, with it's plethora of FREE women care. Federal/State funding isn't needed to be sent to PP, as other providers can offer those services.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/08/25 16:54:20
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2015/08/25 17:09:54
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
What PP and StemExpress have done/said should horrify folks.
They have done nothing illegal and every investigation since the videos has cleared them. You are confusing "I don't like it" with "It's illegal".
Politically (as it's germane to this thread), with my stated opposition, I don't believe Federal nor State funding should be going to PP. Those same fundings should be re-directed to community healthcare providers, who can more that adequately provide Women services.
Additionally, since Obamacare is the law, with it's plethora of FREE women care. Federal/State funding isn't needed to be sent to PP, as other providers can offer those services.
So just to be clear:
You want to deny legal funding to legal groups providing a legal service despite zero evidence that they committed any illegal activity, who in fact now have had multiple investigations clearing them of any legal wrongdoing, just because you don't like that they provide a legal service that none of the legal funding is even paying for?
2015/08/25 17:17:16
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Politically (as it's germane to this thread), with my stated opposition, I don't believe Federal nor State funding should be going to PP. Those same fundings should be re-directed to community healthcare providers, who can more than adequately provide Women services.
Additionally, since Obamacare is the law, with it's plethora of FREE women care. Federal/State funding isn't needed to be sent to PP, as other providers can offer those services.
So, you want to remove funding from community healthcare providers.... to give them to.... community healthcare providers???
I think we all know by know that ACA isn't all that good, and that there's still a very real need for "affordable" services like PP offers. If we were able to still improve the overall healthcare system, then maybe we could return to the discussion of the value of PP.
2015/08/25 17:50:55
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
What PP and StemExpress have done/said should horrify folks.
They have done nothing illegal and every investigation since the videos has cleared them. You are confusing "I don't like it" with "It's illegal".
Nope. No confusion.
Politically (as it's germane to this thread), with my stated opposition, I don't believe Federal nor State funding should be going to PP. Those same fundings should be re-directed to community healthcare providers, who can more that adequately provide Women services.
Additionally, since Obamacare is the law, with it's plethora of FREE women care. Federal/State funding isn't needed to be sent to PP, as other providers can offer those services.
So just to be clear:
You want to deny legal funding to legal groups providing a legal service despite zero evidence that they committed any illegal activity, who in fact now have had multiple investigations clearing them of any legal wrongdoing, just because you don't like that they provide a legal service that none of the legal funding is even paying for?
I think we all know by know that ACA isn't all that good, and that there's still a very real need for "affordable" services like PP offers. If we were able to still improve the overall healthcare system, then maybe we could return to the discussion of the value of PP.
Again... what I was suggesting was that those Federal/State fundings be redirected to other community healthcare providers. No services would be cut, in fact, some providers could scale up. The issue would be access... which, shouldn't be a prob:
Spoiler:
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/08/25 18:03:46
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2015/08/25 18:36:42
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
I think we all know by know that ACA isn't all that good, and that there's still a very real need for "affordable" services like PP offers. If we were able to still improve the overall healthcare system, then maybe we could return to the discussion of the value of PP.
Again... what I was suggesting was that those Federal/State fundings be redirected to other community healthcare providers. No services would be cut, in fact, some providers could scale up. The issue would be access... which, shouldn't be a prob:
Spoiler:
So, you want to take away funding from something that provides services and give it to another place so it can provide the exact same services? Did I read that right?
2015/08/25 18:40:31
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
That's not sig worthy, but it is a new contender for dumbest analogy that I have seen on DakkaDakka.
Maybe we should shut down whembly's hospital, there are other places that are hospitals out there so there is no real reason to keep it around. We don't need actual legal reasons for wanting to defund places, so it's as good a place as any.
2015/08/25 18:54:17
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
d-usa wrote: That's not sig worthy, but it is a new contender for dumbest analogy that I have seen on DakkaDakka.
Maybe we should shut down whembly's hospital, there are other places that are hospitals out there so there is no real reason to keep it around. We don't need actual legal reasons for wanting to defund places, so it's as good a place as any.
I've explicitlystated my reasons.
Keep strawmanning mang.
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2015/08/25 19:24:51
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
d-usa wrote: That's not sig worthy, but it is a new contender for dumbest analogy that I have seen on DakkaDakka.
Maybe we should shut down whembly's hospital, there are other places that are hospitals out there so there is no real reason to keep it around. We don't need actual legal reasons for wanting to defund places, so it's as good a place as any.
I've explicitlystated my reasons.
Keep strawmanning mang.
Your reason is "I don't like them", which is as much of a reason as wanting to shut down your hospital because I don't like them.
The whole "calling them healthcare providers" analogy is idiotic because it has zero basis in reality of any kind. Even if you want to continue with the whole "I don't like abortions and that's that" route, you can't ignore the fact that 97% of their services have nothing to do with abortions at all:
They are a community healthcare provider who provides STI screening and treatment, contraception, cancer screenings, and other services that have nothing to do with abortions to almost all of their patients. Pretending that providing these services makes them a healthcare provider in the same way that selling cocaine makes you a pharmacist is ridiculous. It is also ridiculous to argue that every other provider is going to step up and provide these services (60% of which are not covered by any federal funding in the first place) if PP were to be shut down. You want to dump over 10 million visits on every other health care clinic because you don't like that 320,000 visits were abortion related (and well within the scope of the law).
"I don't like it" has long been struck down as a reason by the courts and years of legislation and politics have put us at the uneasy truce that exists at this time. Abortion is legal the way it is provided, PP gets federal funding (which accounts for 40% of their budget) for all the other service, but no federal funding can be used for abortions by them or anyone else, and other than occasional pot shots back and forth, most of which get struck down by various courts, this is the status quo. Both legally and politically.
The big "break" for conservatives and politicians running on the "no abortions of any kind at any time" platform was the brief promise of illegal procedures and illegal sale of fetal tissue by Planned Parenthood. It gave them hope of being able to shut down PP without looking like they were trying to rob women of needed services, but instead by being able to shut them down for being criminal enterprise. "I'm sorry, we don't mean to take away your abortion providers, but we can't let modern grave robbers go unpunished" was the brief rallying cry of the politicians running for office and politicians already in office. That hope came crashing down when it was revealed that it was based on lies and was taken out behind the barn and shot with every investigation that cleared PP.
There are still presidential candidates that repeat that lie to this day, and that is what they are: liars. And people who argue that PP should be shut down because they are illegally harvesting body parts and selling them are either liars as well, or victims that are just repeating the same lies that they have been told. People arguing that we should not pay PP for non-abortion related legal services that they provide because 3% of their services are related to abortion, and for which they are not receiving federal money, really have no good argument at all.
And just to clarify (and hopefully keep the post from being considered off-topic): I'm not looking to argue abortion itself. I'm just arguing that the legality is not affected by how we fell about a service as well as the political effects of these feelings.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/08/25 19:44:01
2015/08/25 19:30:09
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Why? Her Senate seat is pretty safe for Democrats.
Republicans won the last special election in Massachusetts, there is no sense in risking another loss; especially given that it could cause the Democrats to lose the filibuster.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
2015/08/25 19:40:25
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Why? Her Senate seat is pretty safe for Democrats.
Republicans won the last special election in Massachusetts, there is no sense in risking another loss; especially given that it could cause the Democrats to lose the filibuster.
Hmmm... good point. Although, I'd bet big that R's won't win again in Mass, and I'd even argue further is still "safe" for Democrats.
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2015/08/25 19:55:18
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
The number is not bunk. Off all the services provided, 3% are abortion procedures.
The other way people have tried to look at the numbers it to compare the actual number of abortion services to the actual number of clients served, and the highest percentage that people have come up with that way is 12% (assuming that one abortion related service = 1 abortion). If we take into account that most states now require multiple visits to get an abortion, that number will shrink quite a bit. One abortion service for the initial consultation, another for the required counseling, another for the required ultrasound, another for the required return visit days later to actually get your abortion, another for your return visit to get day 2 of your pills if you are going that route. Realistically the number is quite a bit lower than 12% of patients, but that doesn't change that 3% of services rendered were abortion related. Every woman would have still been given a pregnancy test even if they never intended to have an abortion, just like the first thing your wife got when she went to the doctor when she was pregnant was a pregnancy test. A pregnancy test, surprisingly enough, is the baseline to establish pregnancy regardless of your intentions.
Of course none of that changes that the vast majority of services provided are not related to abortion, that they are not doing anything illegal, and that arguing that you can dump 10 million patients into an already stressed system without any consequence to them or the other providers and that the only reason you are doing that is because a vast minority of their services is a legal procedure that people don't agree with and which isn't covered by any of the funding that they want to withdraw anyway is simply ridiculous.
2015/08/25 20:13:19
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
whembly wrote: I believe it's meant to shine more sunlight on the issues at hand, as most people want to keep their heads in the sand... rather than facing the harsh realities.
The people who engage with the abortion issue are universally aware of the harsh realities surrounding it. This is one of the problems the pro-life movement has, its members assume that pro-choice people don't believe abortion is bad because they are ignorant of what happens as a result of the procedure. As a result they produce videos like the one we're discussing, stand in public places with placards bearing the image of aborted fetuses, and hand out fliers with the same. This pushes people away from the pro-life movement because it either grosses them out, causing them to ignore the abortion issue, or annoys them, leading to new members of the pro-choice movement.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
2015/08/25 20:34:16
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Most of the pro-choicers I've discussed the issue with find abortion distasteful. One can find abortion to be wrong while still believing it's none of the government's business.
And that kind of just gets back to the issue the Republicans are having. Politics of exclusion. The only position the Republicans back as a party is "all abortion is bad all the time," and if you disagree with that then you're an evil sinner, worship satan, and probably want the terrorists to win.
LordofHats wrote: Most of the pro-choicers I've discussed the issue with find abortion distasteful. One can find abortion to be wrong while still believing it's none of the government's business.
And that kind of just gets back to the issue the Republicans are having. Politics of exclusion. The only position the Republicans back as a party is "all abortion is bad all the time," and if you disagree with that then you're an evil sinner, worship satan, and probably want the terrorists to win.
How is that different than the Democrats-all abortion all the time! stance?
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
2015/08/25 20:42:13
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Frazzled wrote: How is that different than the Democrats-all abortion all the time! stance?
Because the Republican stance is expressly exclusive (forcing out anyone who doesn't agree with the position), while the Democratic stance is inclusive (an open door to anyone who agrees with the basic position that it's not the government's business)
Frazzled wrote: How is that different than the Democrats-all abortion all the time! stance?
Because the Republican stance is expressly exclusive (forcing out anyone who doesn't agree with the position), while the Democratic stance is inclusive (an open door to anyone who agrees with the basic position that it's not the government's business)
Bwahahaha... that's hysterical.
Both parties have their share of sacred cows and bugaboo's.
"My legs are shaking," the pollster Frank Luntz says of the results
A flock of two dozen mad-as-hell supporters of Donald Trump agreed to assemble on Monday night in a political consultant’s office to explain their passion for the Republican frontrunner. Gathered in a corporate-looking room with the shades drawn, they railed against Washington politicians who hire consultants, and sang their admiration for the one presidential candidate who promises to go his own way.
“I think America is pissed. Trump’s the first person that came out and voiced exactly what everybody’s been saying all along,” one man said. “When he talks, deep down somewhere you’re going, ‘Holy crap, someone is thinking the same way I am.’”
Frank Luntz, a fast-talking Republican pollster who frequently appears on television and writes newspaper op-eds, urged them on. When did you first decide you liked Trump? he asked. And why are you mad as hell?
“When Trump talks, it may not be presented in a pristine, PC way, but we’ve been having that crap pushed to us for the past 40 years!” said another man. “He’s saying what needs to be said.”
This 29-person focus group, conducted by Luntz and observed by a group of national press reporters from behind a pane of one-way glass, had gathered to explain the phenomenon of Trump. Why is a billionaire real estate mogul, TV celebrity and oft-accused demagogue who has never held office leading the Republican field with some 22% support in the polls?
After the first Republican debate, Luntz had held a similar focus group of likely Republican voters that found Trump had performed poorly. In trademark fashion, Trump responded by attacking Luntz on Twitter at 3:28 a.m. the following morning. “@FrankLuntz is a low class slob who came to my office looking for consulting work and I had zero interest. Now he picks anti-Trump panels!” Trump wrote.
Luntz’s firm paid each of the participants $100 for the two-and-a-half hour session. (They wore tags with their first names that were mostly illegible to reporters behind the glass.) The group was not a representative sample of the Republican party, or early state voters, as all of them had been selected because they like (or love) Trump and live in Washington or its suburbs in Maryland and Virginia. But they offered a glimpse into the Trump mystique, a lucrative brand whose success has caught the national media, the Republican establishment and experienced pollsters like the veteran Luntz off guard.
The Donald devotees sang a contrapuntal tune, simultaneously a dirge to national decline and an ode to Trump. They believed Washington politicians and the Republican party had repeatedly misled them, and that the country is going down the tubes. They looked for relief in Trump.
“I used to sleep on my front porch with the door wide open, and now everyone has deadbolts,” one man said. “I believe the best days of the country are behind us.”
“I’m frustrated beyond belief. I feel like I’ve been lied to,” a woman said. “Nothing’s getting better.”
Many sounded like relations of an ill patient, furious that all the previous doctors have botched a test or fumbled the scalpel. To them, Trump actually is the real-deal fixer-upper, and he is going to make America great again.
“We know his goal is to make America great again,” a woman said. “It’s on his hat. And we see it every time it’s on TV. Everything that he’s doing, there’s no doubt why he’s doing it: it’s to make America great again.”
The focus group watched taped instances on a television of Trump’s apparent misogyny, political flip flops and awe-inspiring braggadocio. They watched the Donald say Rosie O’Donnell has a “fat, ugly face.” They saw that Trump once supported a single-payer health system, and they heard him say, “I will be the greatest jobs president God ever created.” But the group—which included 23 white people, 3 African-Americans and three Hispanics and consisted of a plurality of college-educated, financially comfortably Donald devotees—was undeterred.
At the end of the session, the vast majority said they liked Trump more than when they walked in.
“You guys understand how significant this is?” Luntz asked the press breathlessly when he came back into the room behind the glass. “This is real. I’m having trouble processing it. Like, my legs are shaking.”
“I want to put the Republican leadership behind this mirror and let them see. They need to wake up. They don’t realize how the grassroots have abandoned them,” Luntz continued. “Donald Trump is punishment to a Republican elite that wasn’t listening to their grassroots.”
The group said Trump has their best interests in mind, while other Republicans are looking out for themselves. “We’ve got to show the Republicans that we’ve had it with them, that we will not be there every single time. They treat us like crap and they lie to us and promise us things and then they expect us to vote again,” said a Republican woman. “That’s why we want Trump.”
The crowd in the room was angriest about national security. Nearly all of them, it appeared, had an unshakeable feeling that U.S. border was porous as a sieve and that the very things that once defined the nation: army, border and national pride—were fading. They complained of America’s reduced standing in the world, and Obama’s apparent ineptitude in challenging Russia, Syria and ISIS.
When the group listened to a clip of Trump claiming that as president “the military is going to be so strong” that “nobody is going to mess around with the United States,” nearly everyone registered approval on their dial meters of 100—a seldom occurrence among focus groups.
“We love our country and we love what our country stands for,” said a woman who added she comes from a military family. “I look at where we are now as a country where entitlements are just totally out of control. Our borders have completely dissolved. We’re not what we used to be. I want to people to represent my interest.”
Trump’s unapologetic focus on strengthening the border—he wants to build a wall and deport all 11 million immigrants before letting many back into the country—excites many conservatives, as well as some who don’t traditionally vote Republican. Though he has announced scant specific plans, Trump has said he will expand the military, commit to veterans, and take a tough line on dealing with China and Iran.
“He’s not afraid,” said a woman who voted twice for Obama. “He keeps prodding on even if people give him negative press. He doesn’t change and apologize.”
Much of Trump’s support in the room seemed to stem from a weakness in the Republican party. The 2014 midterms did not usher in the conservative renaissance Republicans expected. Obamacare has still not been repealed, Congress is looking less likely to override a veto on the Iran deal, and there are still 11 million illegal immigrants in the United States.
The group of 29 went around the room, each supplying a single adjective for the legislative body that let them down after the 2014 elections. Congress “does nothing.” It’s “too old.” “Useless.” “Lame.” “Inept.” “Wrong party.” “Cocktail party.” “Gridlock.” “Costly.” “Sold out.” “Sucks.” “Douchebags.”
Then, the group did the same for Trump. This time: “Tough.” “Businessman.” “Great.” “Successful.” “Not afraid.” “Leader.” “Has guts.” “Charismatic.” “A true American.” “Kicks ass and takes names.”
Congress’ failures were Trump’s gains. The worse Congress and everyone else falls, the more the businessman has to gain. These supporters were evidence that Trump is winning by a new political paradigm, where disappointment and enchantment go hand in hand.
Well... that's what I was saying that Trump is evidently that anti-Establisment candidate.
O.o
I thought that was Cruz's positions? (since he's an equal opportunity piss every one off Senator).
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2015/08/25 21:02:24
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Frazzled wrote: How is that different than the Democrats-all abortion all the time! stance?
Because the Republican stance is expressly exclusive (forcing out anyone who doesn't agree with the position), while the Democratic stance is inclusive (an open door to anyone who agrees with the basic position that it's not the government's business)
They look like identical litmus tests.
Republicans: All our candidates must agree abortion must be illegal.
Democrats: All our candidates must agree abortion must be legal.
Its that subtle.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
2015/08/25 21:16:28
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Republicans: All our candidates must agree abortion must be illegal.
Democrats: All our candidates must agree abortion must be legal.
Its that subtle.
There are many ways to support the legality of abortion, there's only one way to support the illegality of it. As such the Democratic position is inclusive relative to the Republican position.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
2015/08/25 21:33:38
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Republicans: All our candidates must agree abortion must be illegal.
Democrats: All our candidates must agree abortion must be legal.
Its that subtle.
There are many ways to support the legality of abortion, there's only one way to support the illegality of it. As such the Democratic position is inclusive relative to the Republican position.
^ This. I'm not saying the whole thing isn't silly, I'm just trying to bring this back around to an issue that I think bears relevance; That Republican politics have become increasingly exclusive, while Democratic positions have generally been more open. Once you've taken an anti-abortion stance, you've automatically excluded whole swathes of people. You could break the most general views of abortion into three categories;
Think abortion is right and support its legality.
Think abortion is wrong and support its legality.
Think abortion is wrong and do not support its legality.
The Republicans basically exclude the middle camp from being included and lump them in the first camp, while the Democrats don't care whether someone thinks abortion is right or wrong, only where it should be legal.
This dynamic spreads to many Republican positions, and is why we've seen Republican candidates go increasingly to the right on social issues in general elections. They've excluded anyone who doesn't agree with 1 position, and are forced to drum up that one camp to gain their support since the other two camps will never support them. That's why stuff like the PP video happens. It's not about truth. It's about making that one camp rabid and angry so they'll vote.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/08/25 21:38:51
He resonates with low information voters, at best.
That describes 95% of the American population, on both sides of the aisle.
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
Property much. Most people couldn't give a gak about a lot of politics or government , that why a lot of highly important but boring topics (like infistructure) trend to fall by the wayside most of the time.
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
Pretty sure that's an important one 
