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.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
A thought occurred to me today. The whole point of that Republican pledge to support whomever the party nominates was basically to keep Trump in line, to prevent him from spinning off into a 3rd party candidacy when he inevitably doesn't get the nomination, thus splitting the Republican vote. But...what if it goes the other way? What if Trump actually does win the nomination? Can you just imagine Rubio, Jeb, and others being forced to publicly support Trump?

My guess is old timers who might not have much time left or much of a political future will publicly denounce him (McCain, Bush, Romney, Grahm, maybe even GW) but those who are looking to future elections will swallow their pride (and likely the sword) and support him. Though I still don't see him winning the nom. Cruz will win IA, tarnishing trump's illusion of power; I see NH going to Christie, at which point the race begins anew with Cruz as the likely winner due to his southern strategy and acumen with election rules. Though Christie might put up a fight in the NE which has a lot more moderates and an outsized impact in the GOP primary.

It may surprise American dakka members to learn that any discussion of the ACA has an effect on Britain.

Why? Because Republicans start talking about death panels, and how our National Health Service (NHS) runs death panels, and how 30 years ago we killed Stephen Hawking by putting him on a death panel!

And yet, I saw Stephen Hawking alive and well on TV the other week.

Point is, the last time there was a major discussion about ACA, our NHS was badly criticised by ignorant people who know ZERO about it.

We were swamped out with Fox news TV crews wanting to see our '3rd world' health service!

On the flip side, I understand how Americans feel when foreigners start lecturing them on the 2nd amendment.

 whembly wrote:

Nope. That's a success. It telegraphs the voters that had there been a Republican President, it would've been repealed.

I don't know about that. There is a decent argument that, if the President were Republican, the bill would never have existed in the first place. Ask yourself: if Obama didn't win a second term, how many GOP congressmen would really try all that hard to repeal Obamacare? Because let's be honest, much of the impetus behind repealing Obamacare is "feth the Democrats!", if they've already lost the Presidential election what's the point? I guess fending off challenges from opponents who swing further right than you, but most of the people who stridently oppose Obamacare have swung about as far right as anyone can get.

I dunno. I think this is going to come down to a race between Cruz and Rubio.

 whembly wrote:

Would I rather they use to power of the purse and force a constitutional brawl? Yes.

Why? No one wins if this House tries to use the power of the purse with the respect to Obamacare. The budget will get kicked back and forth by the House and Senate, which will involve a lot of political risk and uncertainty for everyone, and then people in the know will realize that the expensive parts of it are mandatory spending and can only be changed by CIMPs (I refuse to add the 'H') or actual legislation.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Would I rather they use to power of the purse and force a constitutional brawl? Yes.

Why? No one wins if this House tries to use the power of the purse with the respect to Obamacare. The budget will get kicked back and forth by the House and Senate, which will involve a lot of political risk and uncertainty for everyone, and then people in the know will realize that the expensive parts of it are mandatory spending and can only be changed by CIMPs (I refuse to add the 'H') or actual legislation.

I'm still surprised that they did the smart thing with the budget and actually passed a legitimate bipartisan bill in both chambers that allows both sides to have victories while removing the uncertainty of shutdowns.

 d-usa wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Would I rather they use to power of the purse and force a constitutional brawl? Yes.

Why? No one wins if this House tries to use the power of the purse with the respect to Obamacare. The budget will get kicked back and forth by the House and Senate, which will involve a lot of political risk and uncertainty for everyone, and then people in the know will realize that the expensive parts of it are mandatory spending and can only be changed by CIMPs (I refuse to add the 'H') or actual legislation.

I'm still surprised that they did the smart thing with the budget and actually passed a legitimate bipartisan bill in both chambers that allows both sides to have victories while removing the uncertainty of shutdowns.

Ryan wanted the threat of a government shutdown off the table during the election cycle. Right-wing radio blasted him but it was the smart play.

 d-usa wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Would I rather they use to power of the purse and force a constitutional brawl? Yes.

Why? No one wins if this House tries to use the power of the purse with the respect to Obamacare. The budget will get kicked back and forth by the House and Senate, which will involve a lot of political risk and uncertainty for everyone, and then people in the know will realize that the expensive parts of it are mandatory spending and can only be changed by CIMPs (I refuse to add the 'H') or actual legislation.

I'm still surprised that they did the smart thing with the budget and actually passed a legitimate bipartisan bill in both chambers that allows both sides to have victories while removing the uncertainty of shutdowns.

This. IN the election season, this is the only smart play.

I'm just wanting Congress to flex their muscle a bit, because right now, they're being pushed around.

So, Ted Cruz brags about hitting his children...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ted-cruz-spanking_569054a9e4b0cad15e64f24d?

Spanking is not necessarily bad.

Yup. Not to drag the discussion off-topic, but I have absolutely zero issue with spanking kids. There's a difference between a spanking and a beating.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Yup. Not to drag the discussion off-topic, but I have absolutely zero issue with spanking kids. There's a difference between a spanking and a beating.

That depends entirely on the severity. When does a spanking become a beating, for example?

Also, punishment by physical violence is not officially condoned in any US prisons (even the death penalty is attempted to be done with zero pain), no matter what the criminal in question has done, so why is it an acceptable punishment for children who may be too young to fully understand that the action that they are being punished for is wrong at the time of them doing that act?

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Yup. Not to drag the discussion off-topic, but I have absolutely zero issue with spanking kids. There's a difference between a spanking and a beating.

That depends entirely on the severity. When does a spanking become a beating, for example?

Also, punishment by physical violence is not officially condoned in any US prisons (even the death penalty is attempted to be done with zero pain), no matter what the criminal in question has done, so why is it an acceptable punishment for children who may be too young to fully understand that the action that they are being punished for is wrong at the time of them doing that act?

Because the one thing everyone can understand is pain. And children are smart enough to connect what is happening to what they just did. But at the same time they might not understand other forms of punishment.

Spanking is a legitimate form of punishment.

 Grey Templar wrote:

Because the one thing everyone can understand is pain.

Some people like pain.

 Grey Templar wrote:

Spanking is a legitimate form of punishment.

It is illegal in many countries for a good reason. Here is would be child abuse.

 Crimson wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

Spanking is a legitimate form of punishment.

It is illegal in many countries for a good reason. Here is would be child abuse.

Many countries are incorrect and misguided in called it abuse. Like anything, it can be abusive. But the act itself can be done properly and not in an abusive way, and its not difficult to do that either.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Yup. Not to drag the discussion off-topic, but I have absolutely zero issue with spanking kids. There's a difference between a spanking and a beating.

That depends entirely on the severity. When does a spanking become a beating, for example?

Also, punishment by physical violence is not officially condoned in any US prisons (even the death penalty is attempted to be done with zero pain), no matter what the criminal in question has done, so why is it an acceptable punishment for children who may be too young to fully understand that the action that they are being punished for is wrong at the time of them doing that act?

Because the one thing everyone can understand is pain. And children are smart enough to connect what is happening to what they just did. But at the same time they might not understand other forms of punishment.

Spanking is a legitimate form of punishment.

So you're also okay with punishing people with learning difficulties such as autism with spanking as they "will understand pain and connect it with what they just did but at the same time may not understand other forms of punishment."?

 Grey Templar wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Yup. Not to drag the discussion off-topic, but I have absolutely zero issue with spanking kids. There's a difference between a spanking and a beating.

That depends entirely on the severity. When does a spanking become a beating, for example?

Also, punishment by physical violence is not officially condoned in any US prisons (even the death penalty is attempted to be done with zero pain), no matter what the criminal in question has done, so why is it an acceptable punishment for children who may be too young to fully understand that the action that they are being punished for is wrong at the time of them doing that act?

Because the one thing everyone can understand is pain. And children are smart enough to connect what is happening to what they just did. But at the same time they might not understand other forms of punishment.

Spanking is a legitimate form of punishment.

Except any behavioral psychologist knows that positive reinforcement is much more effective than negative as far as getting results. Even hunting dogs know this. My pops gave me a swat now and again (nothing more than I would give my sweetie in play) but it was always the idea that he was disappointed in me that was the punishment more so than the actual physicality. I don't do I with my kids simply because there are much more effective ways to get results.

I did not say it was the only form of punishment. You fit it to the situation. Obviously someone with mental deformities would need to be punished differently to a normal person(which might still include spanking)

But nice attempt at moving the goal post


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Yup. Not to drag the discussion off-topic, but I have absolutely zero issue with spanking kids. There's a difference between a spanking and a beating.

That depends entirely on the severity. When does a spanking become a beating, for example?

Also, punishment by physical violence is not officially condoned in any US prisons (even the death penalty is attempted to be done with zero pain), no matter what the criminal in question has done, so why is it an acceptable punishment for children who may be too young to fully understand that the action that they are being punished for is wrong at the time of them doing that act?

Because the one thing everyone can understand is pain. And children are smart enough to connect what is happening to what they just did. But at the same time they might not understand other forms of punishment.

Spanking is a legitimate form of punishment.

Except any behavioral psychologist knows that positive reinforcement is much more effective than negative as far as getting results. Even hunting dogs know this. My pops gave me a swat now and again (nothing more than I would give my sweetie in play) but it was always the idea that he was disappointed in me that was the punishment more so than the actual physicality.

But completely ignoring negative reinforcement is also very harmful. Use negative reinforcement when something bad is done, use positive when something good is done.

 Grey Templar wrote:

Many countries are incorrect and misguided in called it abuse. Like anything, it can be abusive. But the act itself can be done properly and not in an abusive way, and its not difficult to do that either.

What if the spankee enjoys getting spanked, regardless of what the spanker intends to communicate, and therefore acts in a way to continue getting spanked? Is that abuse?

 Grey Templar wrote:

Many countries are incorrect and misguided in called it abuse. Like anything, it can be abusive. But the act itself can be done properly and not in an abusive way, and its not difficult to do that either.

I'm glad to be living in one of those 'misguided' countries. But fine. Keep hitting your children 'in a proper way.'

How exactly is ignoring negative reinforcement "very harmful"? You give no positive reinforcement for the bad behavior. That is the punishment (along with a stern word and look). The violence is more a result of frustration on the trainer/parent than any sort of effective training device.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Yup. Not to drag the discussion off-topic, but I have absolutely zero issue with spanking kids. There's a difference between a spanking and a beating.

That depends entirely on the severity.

That's what I said, yes. What's the difference between telling your kid that what they did was wrong versus telling them that they're a fething moron who should jump off a building?

Also, punishment by physical violence is not officially condoned in any US prisons (even the death penalty is attempted to be done with zero pain), no matter what the criminal in question has done, so why is it an acceptable punishment for children who may be too young to fully understand that the action that they are being punished for is wrong at the time of them doing that act?

Because it works? If it doesn't work on your specific child then try something else.

EDIT- Also, I'm glad that after specifically saying "not to draw the discussion off-topic" everyone immediately drags the discussion off-topic. Never change, Dakka.

The beatings will continue until morale improves.

Thats fine for you, but don't try and claim people who use spanking are automatically abusive parents. Its insulting.

 dogma wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

Many countries are incorrect and misguided in called it abuse. Like anything, it can be abusive. But the act itself can be done properly and not in an abusive way, and its not difficult to do that either.

What if the spankee enjoys getting spanked, regardless of what the spanker intends to communicate, and therefore acts in a way to continue getting spanked? Is that abuse?

Nobody wants to hear about your sex life Dogma.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
How exactly is ignoring negative reinforcement "very harmful"? You give no positive reinforcement for the bad behavior. That is the punishment (along with a stern word and look). The violence is more a result of frustration on the trainer/parent than any sort of effective training device.

That doesn't tell kids that bad stuff is bad. It tells them that bad stuff doesn't get them in trouble. They need to associate doing bad things with actual punishment. Otherwise, they're going to be confused if they do something horrendously bad and get in actual trouble.

This is the root cause of Affleuenza. Kids we never got in trouble for doing bad things, and their parents refuse to discipline them(weather that be with corporeal punishment or otherwise)

 Grey Templar wrote:
I did not say it was the only form of punishment. You fit it to the situation. Obviously someone with mental deformities would need to be punished differently to a normal person(which might still include spanking)

But nice attempt at moving the goal post

It''s not really moving the goalposts.

Both children and people with certain mental issues are regarded by law to be less capable of understanding the implications of their actions as those who are older. Saying that one instance of lack of mental development (being a child) means that it is acceptable to hit them as a form of punishment but that the other (having a condition which limits mental development, even into adulthood) is not is a pretty big double standard.

What spanking does is enforce the idea that violence is an acceptable means of punishing those who you feel have done you wrong. It does not enforce discipline or good behaviour any more than positive reinforcement or non-violent punishments.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
I did not say it was the only form of punishment. You fit it to the situation. Obviously someone with mental deformities would need to be punished differently to a normal person(which might still include spanking)

But nice attempt at moving the goal post

It''s not really moving the goalposts.

Both children and people with certain mental issues are regarded by law to be less capable of understanding the implications of their actions as those who are older. Saying that one instance of lack of mental development (being a child) means that it is acceptable to hit them as a form of punishment but that the other (having a condition which limits mental development, even into adulthood) is not is a pretty big double standard.

What spanking does is enforce the idea that violence is an acceptable means of punishing those who you feel have done you wrong. It does not enforce discipline or good behaviour any more than positive reinforcement or non-violent punishments.

Given that physical punishment was used for thousands of years, and is still used today, and most people turned out ok I think you are wrong in saying it is directly harmful on its face.

You are acting like I am advocating for only physical punishment and not using other methods as well. Not at all. You use all types, positive and negative reinforcement. Spanking is a useful tool in the tool box, nothing more and nothing less.

My dad spanked me, but never in anger and he always told me he loved me afterwards. I quickly learned not to do the things he spanked me for.

 Grey Templar wrote:

Nobody wants to hear about your sex life Dogma.

I'm not talking about my sex life. I am simply referring to the fact that there are people who find spanking arousing and therefore it could be easily construed as molestation or sexual abuse.

 dogma wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

Nobody wants to hear about your sex life Dogma.

I'm not talking about my sex life. I am simply referring to the fact that there are people who find spanking arousing and therefore it could be easily construed as molestation or sexual abuse.

Its a pretty big leap to make that connection.

You realize you are basically asserting millions of people are child molesters because a minor portion of the population finds spanking a little kinky.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Because it works? If it doesn't work on your specific child then try something else.

Citation needed. If physical violence actually worked to improve behaviour then it would still be used in prisons and the military as a means of punishment.