• Cyburbia is a friendly big tent, where we share our experiences and thoughts about urban planning practice, the built environment, planning adjacent topics, and anything else that comes to mind. No ads, no spam, and it's free. It's easy to join!

NEVERENDING ♾️ The NEVERENDING Political Discussion Thread

Suburb Repairman said:
Sorry AG, but this is not a joke anymore. WSU's posts serves in part to illustrate why. I cannot laugh at him or even with him. The guy has a pattern now of bowing admiration to Russia. He has wanton disregard of the Constitution. He has no filter. He has no respect for a free press or freedom of speech in general. No sense of human rights. No indication of even human decency. I question where his fundamental loyalties are at this point.
Click to expand...

I agree with everything you just said.

I also think that a lot of it also applies with Hillary Clinton, but with other countries instead of Russia.

Vote 3rd Party. Don't become Sheeple!
 
Suburb Repairman said:
Sorry AG, but this is not a joke anymore. WSU's posts serves in part to illustrate why. I cannot laugh at him or even with him. The guy has a pattern now of bowing admiration to Russia. He has wanton disregard of the Constitution. He has no filter. He has no respect for a free press or freedom of speech in general. No sense of human rights. No indication of even human decency. I question where his fundamental loyalties are at this point.
Click to expand...

Oh I definitely agree, it's not a joke, but what can you do at this point? I've given up being angry because it's not going to help matters. It's just insane to me to think that this is the best we have. I mean taking in to account ALL the candidates for both parties, not a one is worth a damn (maybe Bernie but he threw that in the trash this week).
 
Gary Johnson has promised to stop smoking weed if elected, just saying...
 
giff57 said:
Gary Johnson has promised to stop smoking weed if elected, just saying...
Click to expand...

Well that's disappointing. I want my Commander-in-Chief to be chill as f***. :p

I'm paying close attention to the polling in Texas. Right now Trump is polling a single-digit lead. For comparison, Romney won Texas by 14 points in 2012. There's actually a real possibility Trump has screwed-up a GOP stronghold.

Here's where it stands for me at the end of July... this can certainly change... If this single-digit polling continues, I'll probably cast a vote for Clinton because I desperately want to teach the Texas GOP a lesson (M'skis... you probably aren't as familiar with some of the BS that has gone on here in Texas in what has essentially become a one-party system). If Trump is in the high singles or hits double digits, then I'll cast my vote for Johnson in an effort to help a 3rd party get Federal election funding & increased exposure in the future.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/tx/texas_trump_vs_clinton-5694.html

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/06/27/republicans-facing-catastrophe-trump-leads-clinton-single-digits-texas.html

http://electiongraphs.com/2016ec/polldata.php?Dem=Clinton&Rep=Trump&State=TX
 
Suburb Repairman said:
Well that's disappointing. I want my Commander-in-Chief to be chill as f***. :p

I'm paying close attention to the polling in Texas. Right now Trump is polling a single-digit lead. For comparison, Romney won Texas by 14 points in 2012. There's actually a real possibility Trump has screwed-up a GOP stronghold.

Here's where it stands for me at the end of July... this can certainly change... If this single-digit polling continues, I'll probably cast a vote for Clinton because I desperately want to teach the Texas GOP a lesson (M'skis... you probably aren't as familiar with some of the BS that has gone on here in Texas in what has essentially become a one-party system). If Trump is in the high singles or hits double digits, then I'll cast my vote for Johnson in an effort to help a 3rd party get Federal election funding & increased exposure in the future.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/tx/texas_trump_vs_clinton-5694.html

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/06/27/republicans-facing-catastrophe-trump-leads-clinton-single-digits-texas.html

http://electiongraphs.com/2016ec/polldata.php?Dem=Clinton&Rep=Trump&State=TX
Click to expand...

I have heard about some of it, and yea, it is a bit overboard. However, I think that Trump will still take Texas by a sizable margin because too many sheeple are just going to check the R box and walk out.
 
And so the campaign won't matter at all.


That is because some predict that the world will end tomorrow. (LINK TO WGN)

Apparently, the polar poles, not the voting ones, will flip on Friday of this week, resulting in storms that will destroy humanity. Granted it's not a giant meteor, but it might better than a Trump or Clinton presidency.
 
michaelskis said:
And so the campaign won't matter at all.


That is because some predict that the world will end tomorrow. (LINK TO WGN)

Apparently, the polar poles, not the voting ones, will flip on Friday of this week, resulting in storms that will destroy humanity. Granted it's not a giant meteor, but it might better than a Trump or Clinton presidency.
Click to expand...

Fascinating. Because I'm too lazy to google and my last earth science class was in 8th grade, is there any actual scientific evidence of this happening? Would the polar flip be permanent. Whose job would it be to change the arrows on all the maps? :)
 
michaelskis said:
And so the campaign won't matter at all.


That is because some predict that the world will end tomorrow. (LINK TO WGN)

Apparently, the polar poles, not the voting ones, will flip on Friday of this week, resulting in storms that will destroy humanity. Granted it's not a giant meteor, but it might better than a Trump or Clinton presidency.
Click to expand...

At least we got a few days warning, what more could you ask for? Guess I'll put off those staff reports
 
michaelskis said:
And so the campaign won't matter at all.


That is because some predict that the world will end tomorrow. (LINK TO WGN)

Apparently, the polar poles, not the voting ones, will flip on Friday of this week, resulting in storms that will destroy humanity. Granted it's not a giant meteor, but it might better than a Trump or Clinton presidency.
Click to expand...

Hookers & Blow tonight!!! Anyone else in?
 
Yes

gtpeach said:
Fascinating. Because I'm too lazy to google and my last earth science class was in 8th grade, is there any actual scientific evidence of this happening? Would the polar flip be permanent. Whose job would it be to change the arrows on all the maps? :)
Click to expand...

It is a real thing. The big flip takes place about every 300,000 years (800,000 and counting for us) so way overdue. Yellowstone will BLOW right at the same time. Let NASA put your mind at ease:

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2012-poleReversal.html
 
Based on my winter feed this morning, Hillary Clinton must have given her speech last night. I did not watch it, but I have to ask how was it. Also, do you believe that she will do what she says she will do, and do you think it will be good for most Americans?
 
michaelskis said:
Based on my winter feed this morning, Hillary Clinton must have given her speech last night. I did not watch it, but I have to ask how was it. Also, do you believe that she will do what she says she will do, and do you think it will be good for most Americans?
Click to expand...

The highlight of the DNC last night was this guy: http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/28/politics/khizr-khan-muslim-soldier-donald-trump-dnc/index.html

Chelsea did a really good job of humanizing her mother. I don't think Hillary's speech was necessarily the best speech in the entire world, but her strategy seemed to be to demonstrate that she had actual implementation policies for a lot of her policies, which would contrast her with Trump. I thought she did a good job. She stuck to her strengths.

Will she do what she says she will? I think she'll try. Whether or not she's able to implement a lot of her strategies will obviously depend on how much cooperation she has from congress. Will it be good for most Americans? I think that's fairly debatable. It depends on where you lean on the political spectrum. Her policies make more economic sense to me so I think they'd be better for middle class Americans. Based on her background, she has a lot of ground level advocacy experience, so i think she's in a better place to address concerns with public education. She took a much more well-rounded approach to addressing the issues between citizens and police. If you're an immigrant or a minority, LGBTQ, or an advocate for protection of women's rights, she's the candidate that will protect your interests.

If one of your biggest issues is protection of the current interpretation of the second amendment, you won't think she's good for Americans. And if you believe that there's no way to end the ISIS conflicts without resorting to extreme measures, she's also not good for Americans. And if you see illegal immigration and paths to legal citizenship as being destructive to Americans, then she's not your candidate.

Do I think she still has issues? Sure. And I realize you can evaluate a candidate without comparing them to others, but she seems to have the most realistic platform out of all the candidates at this point.
 
It's not so much that I'm concerned that Clinton will be able to accomplish all the policy goals that she laid out, it's more so that I'm worried that Trump will try to accomplish his.
 
gtpeach said:
The highlight of the DNC last night was this guy: http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/28/politics/khizr-khan-muslim-soldier-donald-trump-dnc/index.html

Chelsea did a really good job of humanizing her mother. I don't think Hillary's speech was necessarily the best speech in the entire world, but her strategy seemed to be to demonstrate that she had actual implementation policies for a lot of her policies, which would contrast her with Trump. I thought she did a good job. She stuck to her strengths.

Will she do what she says she will? I think she'll try. Whether or not she's able to implement a lot of her strategies will obviously depend on how much cooperation she has from congress. Will it be good for most Americans? I think that's fairly debatable. It depends on where you lean on the political spectrum. Her policies make more economic sense to me so I think they'd be better for middle class Americans. Based on her background, she has a lot of ground level advocacy experience, so i think she's in a better place to address concerns with public education. She took a much more well-rounded approach to addressing the issues between citizens and police. If you're an immigrant or a minority, LGBTQ, or an advocate for protection of women's rights, she's the candidate that will protect your interests.

If one of your biggest issues is protection of the current interpretation of the second amendment, you won't think she's good for Americans. And if you believe that there's no way to end the ISIS conflicts without resorting to extreme measures, she's also not good for Americans. And if you see illegal immigration and paths to legal citizenship as being destructive to Americans, then she's not your candidate.

Do I think she still has issues? Sure. And I realize you can evaluate a candidate without comparing them to others, but she seems to have the most realistic platform out of all the candidates at this point.
Click to expand...

Do you think her ties and promises to big banks and wall street will get in the way of her helping the middle class? Don't get me wrong, there is a lot of stuff that she says that she will do and on the surface, I agree with her. But when you dig deeper into it, that is where the differences start to show up. Like her promise for a fair tax system, but when you dive into it, it does not help the middle class, complicates the tax code even more, and do you really think that she will raise taxes on billionaires when they are giving her so much campaign money?

Don't get me wrong, I don't think Trump is much better.


What we need is a simple tax system. A graduated tax system based on your total income. ALL INCOME. No deductions, no loopholes, no nothing. Depending on what you make, a % goes to taxes. It would eliminate almost all of the IRS and tax returns every year. The tax code would become 1 page. Billionares would pay a higher rate than the middle class and whatever the national average poverty rate is, those below it would pay zero. Every paycheck is calculated based on that paycheck so it is correct at the end of the year.

Also, can you explain to be the differences between Trump and Clinton on LGBTQ, minorities citizens, and gender equality?


*Disclaimer, I am not voting for Trump or Clinton. They both suck and will destroy our country in different ways.
 
michaelskis said:
Also, can you explain to be the differences between Trump and Clinton on LGBTQ, minorities citizens, and gender equality?
Click to expand...

Trump has already lost any credibility for minority communities and women just with the statements he's made. You don't run around calling women ugly or half the other things he has said and then promise that you can help them. Hillary at least has credibility. Like any politician I don't know if she can actually accomplish anything to fix the immigration problem, wage gap, racial divide, or anything else, but at least she's got a better starting point.

For the LGBTQ, I don't think Trump really cares either way, but he'll cater to whoever talks loudest at him which means he'll cave in to saying it's a sin at worst or just do nothing. Hillary at least will try to help get equality, but again, being a politician I don't expect much. In the grand scheme of the election I think she's got a leg up on the social justice thing. The GOP just doesn't seem to understand American society as a whole. For some odd reason we include the tired, poor, huddled masses. I just never remember why that seems to be an American value. I guess I must have read it somewhere.
 
dvdneal said:
Trump has already lost any credibility for minority communities and women just with the statements he's made. You don't run around calling women ugly or half the other things he has said and then promise that you can help them. Hillary at least has credibility. Like any politician I don't know if she can actually accomplish anything to fix the immigration problem, wage gap, racial divide, or anything else, but at least she's got a better starting point.

For the LGBTQ, I don't think Trump really cares either way, but he'll cater to whoever talks loudest at him which means he'll cave in to saying it's a sin at worst or just do nothing. Hillary at least will try to help get equality, but again, being a politician I don't expect much. In the grand scheme of the election I think she's got a leg up on the social justice thing. The GOP just doesn't seem to understand American society as a whole. For some odd reason we include the tired, poor, huddled masses. I just never remember why that seems to be an American value. I guess I must have read it somewhere.
Click to expand...

You lost me at "Hillary at least has credibility" and I don't think that she will be able to do anything regarding any of those problems. Did New York get better because of her actions as a senator? I haven't seen anything that says it has. Do we have better foreign relations because of her actions as Secretary of State? She has made claims about the ceasefire in the Gaza Strip, but how much of that was her?

As for the GOP, they are so fractured, that I think that many of them don't understand anything, including their own party and I think that Trump is proof of that.
 
One example (this lasted until 11:30 my time, which is about two hours past the point that I start falling asleep, so my recollection of specific facts from her speech is somewhat limited) that she gave was to deny tax write-offs to corporations that outsource jobs to other countries or lay off workers after receiving the credits. I think that's the kind of thing that could be accomplished without necessarily upsetting Wall Street and the big banks. When it comes down to it, Bernie Sanders has a much stronger case about working for the middle class, but I still think she'd be capable of making some progress towards making it easier.

I think Trump might say as part of his speeches that he "loves" women and "loves" minorities, but when it comes down to it, he just doesn't. Look at the situation with the Mexican American judge, Gonzalo Curiel. Because his parents were from Mexico, Trump accuses him of not being able to be fair to preside over a court case that has nothing at all to even do with Mexico. He has a history of denigrating women - calling them names, commenting on their appearances, treating them in disrespectful and condescending ways, commenting on the figures and looks of his own daughters. I don't believe that you can say those kinds of things and still work on policies that will respect women. He has an unclear message on whether abortion should be criminalized or not (I actually don't support abortion personally, but regardless, he has been inconsistent either way). And he certainly hasn't spent much time discussing what he would do to promote women's rights, including closing the gender wage gaps that still exist which Hillary has spent some time addressing. He's discussed monitoring masques and blaming Muslims for not "outing" who the radicals are, basically assuming that every Muslim knows everything about each other. Not to mention the bans on immigration of Muslims to our country in general. There are many people who agree with that, I know. But if you're an American, you should not be subjected to increased monitoring and surveillance just because of your religious or ethnic identity.

Mike Pence, Trump's VP, has supported conversion therapy for gay men and women, which research has shown ends up doing a lot of psychological damage to those involved. He also was responsible for the "religious freedom" bill that was so controversial, basically protecting Christian business owners from having to provide services to the LGBTQ communities. True, that isn't Trump's personal track record, but he did choose Pence as his VP, and so we can't just ignore Pence's history.

So there's some background. Not all of those are actual policy platforms, but assuming people act on their underlying understanding of the issues, I think its helIf pful to look at what they've said and whose support they are getting.

**Disclaimer: I am not a democrat nor a republican. I also don't like the third party nominees. Even though Hillary has her issues, I think many of them have been overblown and biased based on people's pre-existing assessments of who she was that started back in 1994. :)
 
michaelskis said:
You lost me at "Hillary at least has credibility" and I don't think that she will be able to do anything regarding any of those problems. Did New York get better because of her actions as a senator? I haven't seen anything that says it has. Do we have better foreign relations because of her actions as Secretary of State? She has made claims about the ceasefire in the Gaza Strip, but how much of that was her?

As for the GOP, they are so fractured, that I think that many of them don't understand anything, including their own party and I think that Trump is proof of that.
Click to expand...

Yes, but IF (and it's a big IF) a politician were to do something about let's just pick racial problems (not that a politician can do much more than take credit for other people's work) who would the minority communities stand behind faster? Hillary who at least claims she wants to work with people (empty promise or not - someone else can fact check her work) or Trump who has said horrible things about Mexicans and belongs to a party that obviously doesn't care about minorities. If nothing else, it gets her the minority vote with no question. Real solutions to social problems I think require people willing to make change happen. If a law is required as part of that then we can include some politician.
 
I was reading some of the policy positions of Gary Johnson this morning and...well I'm not impressed and most likely won't be floating a vote his way either. I was a little closer in line with Jill Stein's views though.

TBH, I might just stay at home for this election, huddled together in my basement with the bugout bag for when the world goes to shit. Or I might just suck it up and vote for Hilary. I despise her as a person. Shes a conniving arrogant liar who will stop at nothing to get her way. She's a real life Claire Underwood and everything about her reeks of corruption, but her policy is exactly in line with what I believe. It's going to take me a lot to get me to that polling station though.
 
AG74683 said:
I was reading some of the policy positions of Gary Johnson this morning and...well I'm not impressed and most likely won't be floating a vote his way either. I was a little closer in line with Jill Stein's views though.

TBH, I might just stay at home for this election, huddled together in my basement with the bugout bag for when the world goes to shit. Or I might just suck it up and vote for Hilary. I despise her as a person. Shes a conniving arrogant liar who will stop at nothing to get her way. She's a real life Claire Underwood and everything about her reeks of corruption, but her policy is exactly in line with what I believe. It's going to take me a lot to get me to that polling station though.
Click to expand...

If it makes you feel better, for a mayoral election where I live we had two candidates that me & several friends didn't really like (it had also been a really ugly, personal campaign... I'm talking accusations from one that the other was involved with a sex club). One was worse that the other though. We actually did shots of whiskey in front of their two campaign groups in the parking lot and went in to vote still holding our shot glasses. Got a laugh from the election workers and even the two campaign groups.

Truthfully, you should still vote. You can always bypass the Presidential and vote down-ballot.
 
Bubba said:
Yeah, I'm way more interested in my local elections than in the Presidential race.
Click to expand...

I never put much stock in my vote with that whole electrical college (I never got it right as a kid). Still do it though. Kansas is voting R no matter what. Reagan could run as a D and this state would vote Hitler because he ran as an R.
 
dvdneal said:
Yes, but IF (and it's a big IF) a politician were to do something about let's just pick racial problems (not that a politician can do much more than take credit for other people's work) who would the minority communities stand behind faster? Hillary who at least claims she wants to work with people (empty promise or not - someone else can fact check her work) or Trump who has said horrible things about Mexicans and belongs to a party that obviously doesn't care about minorities. If nothing else, it gets her the minority vote with no question. Real solutions to social problems I think require people willing to make change happen. If a law is required as part of that then we can include some politician.
Click to expand...

Obama said the same thing... how are race relations working out now?

Trump is an arrogant blowhard who hates mexicans. Zero question about that. But is Hillary any better by just telling people what they want to hear knowing that there is nothing that she could do about the problem. More so, on the second say, she several cop hating mothers speak. Seriously ask about those that she assicates with. Do they really want equality or special privilege, which by definition is not equality. Do you really think that it will make anything better.

Do you really trust what she says?
 
michaelskis said:
Obama said the same thing... how are race relations working out now?

Trump is an arrogant blowhard who hates mexicans. Zero question about that. But is Hillary any better by just telling people what they want to hear knowing that there is nothing that she could do about the problem. More so, on the second say, she several cop hating mothers speak. Seriously ask about those that she assicates with. Do they really want equality or special privilege, which by definition is not equality. Do you really think that it will make anything better.

Do you really trust what she says?
Click to expand...

Small clarification - she had several mothers who had children that were killed by guns on the stage. None of the mothers whose children were killed by police officers spoke - they stood in the background. The mothers that did speak, spoke about their children being killed by guns for other reasons.

And then the mother of a slain Chicago police officer spoke last night. Both sides were represented at the DNC.

I'm one of those people that thinks there does need to be some serious reform in our criminal justice system because it is not equal right now. So, there's that...
 
Just do it

Just go vote for Hillary this year. (period)

With the understanding that if she doesn't at least try to help the middle class and poor, you will consider SATAN (aka Cruz) himself in 2020.
 
gtpeach said:
Small clarification - she had several mothers who had children that were killed by guns on the stage. None of the mothers whose children were killed by police officers spoke - they stood in the background. The mothers that did speak, spoke about their children being killed by guns for other reasons.
And then the mother of a slain Chicago police officer spoke last night. Both sides were represented at the DNC.

I'm one of those people that thinks there does need to be some serious reform in our criminal justice system because it is not equal right now. So, there's that...
Click to expand...

Big correction, she had a crap load of people on stage, most of which said stupid things. Bill Clinton enjoyed playing with the balloons. The fact that they were there on stage sends a message that she does not want there to be equality, she wants to capitalize on hate because it gives her and Slick WIllie the power that they desire. They don't give a rip about the american people.

As for Chicago... how ironic being that chicago has some of the toughest gun laws in the country and a police officer was shot and killed by a criminal.


Do you in all seriousness think that she will do anything about the criminal justice system that will actually help society? I am not saying that Trump will.


The One said:
Just go vote for Hillary this year. (period)

With the understanding that if she doesn't at least try to help the middle class and poor, you will consider SATAN (aka Cruz) himself in 2020.
Click to expand...

BAAAAAA goes the sheeple.


AG74683 said:
NC's worthless voter ID law was overturned today, so that's nice.
Click to expand...

Why is it worthless? There are tons of things, including some rights, that require one to present a photo ID. Why shouldn't people?

Or do you like that it is now simpler for Clinton to rig NC to go her way?
 
michaelskis said:
Why is it worthless? There are tons of things, including some rights, that require one to present a photo ID. Why shouldn't people?
Click to expand...

Voter ID laws are a sham. There is no logical reason for them. Voter fraud is almost non-existent anyways, and that is commonly the reason cited for such laws. The real cause for concern is ELECTION fraud, which voters have almost no real control over anyways. The vast majority of voter ID laws come from Republican led legislatures as an underhanded way to target democratic voters. The overwhelming majority of people who are unfairly burdened by voter ID laws are minorities.

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2016/04/02/3765448/wisconsin-primary-voter-id/. That's a pretty good article on the difficulties around these laws, particularly ones that require valid PHOTO ID.

http://www.aauw.org/2012/09/04/voter-id-laws/, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/01/opinion/the-dishonesty-of-voter-id-laws.html?_r=0, http://www.citylab.com/politics/201...voter-id-laws-hurt-blacks-and-latinos/459819/. Voter ID laws serve no legitimate purpose.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
AG74683 said:
Voter ID laws are a sham. There is no logical reason for them. Voter fraud is almost non-existent anyways, and that is commonly the reason cited for such laws. The real cause for concern is ELECTION fraud, which voters have almost no real control over anyways. The vast majority of voter ID laws come from Republican led legislatures as an underhanded way to target democratic voters. The overwhelming majority of people who are unfairly burdened by voter ID laws are minorities.

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2016/04/02/3765448/wisconsin-primary-voter-id/. That's a pretty good article on the difficulties around these laws, particularly ones that require valid PHOTO ID.

http://www.aauw.org/2012/09/04/voter-id-laws/, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/01/opinion/the-dishonesty-of-voter-id-laws.html?_r=0, http://www.citylab.com/politics/201...voter-id-laws-hurt-blacks-and-latinos/459819/. Voter ID laws serve no legitimate purpose.

Click to expand...

Why don't minorities have IDs? I need an ID to drive a car, buy a beer, use a checkbook, purchase a gun, ammo, hunting or fishing licence, open a bank account, check into a hotel, get a job, attend college, get married, travel to other countries, return from other countries, sit for the AICP exam, get into some bars, buy lottery tickets, and a crap load of other stuff. Why shouldn't we require one to help choose who will run the county and be the most powerful person on the planet.

Next time someone asks me for my ID, I am going to tell them that you said that they are racist. (Granted, they will look at me with the "Who the Mother Goose is AG74683" face)


BTW, comedians have zero credibility in my book when it comes to politics.
 
michaelskis said:
Big correction, she had a crap load of people on stage, most of which said stupid things. Bill Clinton enjoyed playing with the balloons. The fact that they were there on stage sends a message that she does not want there to be equality...
Click to expand...

Your assertion makes absolutely no sense to me. How does inviting them to speak show that she does not want equality?
 
WSU MUP Student said:
Your assertion makes absolutely no sense to me. How does inviting them to speak show that she does not want equality?
Click to expand...

Michael Brown was killed in self defence after committing a crime and while in the process of attacking a police officer. Trayvon Martin had a criminal history and a witness said that he was beating the crap out of Zimmerman (who was stupid enough to follow). The color of their skin did not result in them being killed, their actions did. But to parade them across stage as a banner of injustice only fuels the hate towards police and gun owners.

Last night a 16-year veteran of the San Diego police department was killed after being shot multiple times. His partner was also shot but is expected to survive. What does Hillary Clinton have to say to the two young children of that cop that was murdered? What about the families of those killed in Dallas or Baton Rouge. Yet the federal government won't classify those as hate crimes or domestic terrorism.
 
michaelskis said:
Why don't minorities have IDs? I need an ID to drive a car, buy a beer, use a checkbook, purchase a gun, ammo, hunting or fishing licence, open a bank account, check into a hotel, get a job, attend college, get married, travel to other countries, return from other countries, sit for the AICP exam, get into some bars, buy lottery tickets, and a crap load of other stuff. Why shouldn't we require one to help choose who will run the county and be the most powerful person on the planet.

Next time someone asks me for my ID, I am going to tell them that you said that they are racist. (Granted, they will look at me with the "Who the Mother Goose is AG74683" face)


BTW, comedians have zero credibility in my book when it comes to politics.
Click to expand...

Did you read any of those articles? The biggest thing is a photo ID, there is a difference. 11 percent of voting aged American's do not have photo ID. That doesn't seem like much, but it's nearly 21 million people. I'm not saying ID laws are racist, but it's proven fact that they disproportionately affect minorities, women, and the elderly. How about going and trying to secure a photo ID without your birth certificate or a copy of your social security card, see how difficult that is. We don't all have organized parents who managed to keep those slips of paper for 18 years.

The biggest thing with these laws is that they are touted as protection against voter fraud. This is a flat out lie. Voter fraud is just not that big of a problem. This has been investigated time and time again and the results conclusively show that election fraud is our biggest enemy, and that fraud comes from the same people passing voter ID laws!

And I strongly encourage you to watch that John Oliver clip. He may be a comedian, and he may be English, but his show is on point and is well written and extremely educational. There is a reason why The Daily Show and Colbert Report were some of the most popular comedy shows in recent memory. Hell even my Dad likes John Oliver, and hes as Republican as you can get.
 
I actually forgot about this moment, too, where they had a moment of silence for fallen officers (that some people in the crowd tried to ruin with chants of Black Lives Matter). But the campaign itself made the effort to show respect to both sides of the issue. http://ijr.com/2016/07/661289-the-d...llen-police-officers-then-there-was-a-scream/

Here's the thing when it comes to racial equality as far as policing is concerned. The outrage isn't really just about Michael Brown or Trayvon Martin being killed. It comes from decades of significant power imbalances between police forces and the justice systems and the citizens that are patrolled. When Michael Brown was killed by the officer, it was the breaking point for all that pent up frustration to be released. Maybe Michael Brown isn't the most sympathetic victim, but that doesn't mean that all the unrest that was built up in his community was based on nothing. Justice department investigations found a lot of issues in the way Ferguson used discriminatory policing strategies to basically fund their government system. Police were not there so much to protect people, as they were to fundraise.

This plays out in a lot of other ways. But what essentially happened is that there was never any mutual respect or trust between the officers and the citizens, and it finally reached its boiling point. BOTH sides have responsibility to work together to figure it out. But when it comes down to it, there will always be a power imbalance that gives the police an edge, and so it is my opinion that they bear the responsibility to make the first move to bridge the divide. And if we find ways to do that better, I think it will improve the safety for both officers and citizens.
 
I do not like Clinton. I prefer we had a better choice than her... but we cannot have a man who is so thin skinned he rages against anyone who slights him. The latest? A cease and desist order to his ghostwriter on the Art of the Deal for saying bad things about him. Yes, he'll sue people who say mean things. This sums it up:

http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-...ality-disorder/basics/definition/con-20025568

Narcissistic personality disorder

Definition
By Mayo Clinic Staff

Narcissistic personality disorder is a mental disorder in which people have an inflated sense of their own importance, a deep need for admiration and a lack of empathy for others. But behind this mask of ultraconfidence lies a fragile self-esteem that's vulnerable to the slightest criticism.
Click to expand...

That, is a textbook definition (literally) of Donald Trump.
 
AG74683 said:
Did you read any of those articles? The biggest thing is a photo ID, there is a difference. 11 percent of voting aged American's do not have photo ID. That doesn't seem like much, but it's nearly 21 million people. I'm not saying ID laws are racist, but it's proven fact that they disproportionately affect minorities, women, and the elderly. How about going and trying to secure a photo ID without your birth certificate or a copy of your social security card, see how difficult that is. We don't all have organized parents who managed to keep those slips of paper for 18 years.

The biggest thing with these laws is that they are touted as protection against voter fraud. This is a flat out lie. Voter fraud is just not that big of a problem. This has been investigated time and time again and the results conclusively show that election fraud is our biggest enemy, and that fraud comes from the same people passing voter ID laws!

And I strongly encourage you to watch that John Oliver clip. He may be a comedian, and he may be English, but his show is on point and is well written and extremely educational. There is a reason why The Daily Show and Colbert Report were some of the most popular comedy shows in recent memory. Hell even my Dad likes John Oliver, and hes as Republican as you can get.
Click to expand...

My point is why can't they get one? They are FREE. (LINK) You need a birth certificate to get into school. We just had that situation with our move. We also had to show our ID's to get our kids into school. Do you need and ID to get a bank loan to buy a house, or rent an apartment. Or at least we did.

My wife did need to get a new Social Security Card and Birth Certificate a few months before we got married. It wasn't as hard as you would think. Heck the President Proved it when he got his birth certificate from Hawaii.

No. John Oliver is a comedian and he does not deserve my time, I don't give a rip what party he belongs to. Being Funny makes you an expert in one thing... making people laugh. Unless you're Jay Leno... then it is making people laugh and having awesome cars.

Mastiff said:
I do not like Clinton. I prefer we had a better choice than her... but we cannot have a man who is so thin skinned he rages against anyone who slights him. The latest? A cease and desist order to his ghostwriter on the Art of the Deal for saying bad things about him. Yes, he'll sue people who say mean things. This sums it up:

http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-...ality-disorder/basics/definition/con-20025568



That, is a textbook definition (literally) of Donald Trump.
Click to expand...

He likes to sue everyone. Does this have the interview with the architect that didn't get paid the full amount? He met with Trump and the lawyers, and the lawyers admitted that yes, the architect could sue Trump, and maybe win, but it would be tied up for so long and be such a difficult process, it would cost more than we would get. So the architect backed off and accepted pennies on the dollar.
 
Mastiff said:
I do not like Clinton. I prefer we had a better choice than her... but we cannot have a man who is so thin skinned he rages against anyone who slights him. The latest? A cease and desist order to his ghostwriter on the Art of the Deal for saying bad things about him. Yes, he'll sue people who say mean things. This sums it up:

http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-...ality-disorder/basics/definition/con-20025568



That, is a textbook definition (literally) of Donald Trump.
Click to expand...

Jacob Weisberg, the Editor of Slate, had a good interview a couple of weeks ago with the ghostwriter: A Civic Obligation

(Fun fact: Jacob Weisberg is the brother of Joe Weisberg - a former CIA officer and the creator of The Americans on FX, which is a great show)

michaelskis said:
My point is why can't they get one? They are FREE. (LINK) You need a birth certificate to get into school. We just had that situation with our move. We also had to show our ID's to get our kids into school. Do you need and ID to get a bank loan to buy a house, or rent an apartment. Or at least we did.

My wife did need to get a new Social Security Card and Birth Certificate a few months before we got married. It wasn't as hard as you would think. Heck the President Proved it when he got his birth certificate from Hawaii.
Click to expand...

Having been a social worker in a previous life, I can attest first hand to how difficult it can be for the indigent and those with limited resources to make it to appointments or offices that have specific hours or to have the seemingly never ending list of required documentation with them.

It may not cost any $$$ to show up at the Secretary of State and get an ID card or driver's license... except that you have to coordinated it not only on a day and time that the particular office you need to go to is open but on a day and time where you can take time away from work, pay for transportation, maybe find somebody to watch your kids or your elderly sick parents, etc. All that costs money.
 
My point is that if you elect a narcissist to the highest office in this country, you've created a very dangerous situation. Yeah, let's give the nuclear codes to a thin skinned prick who lashes out at the smallest slight... that's a brilliant idea. :r:
 
WSU MUP Student said:
It may not cost any $$$ to show up at the Secretary of State and get an ID card or driver's license... except that you have to coordinated it not only on a day and time that the particular office you need to go to is open but on a day and time where you can take time away from work, pay for transportation, maybe find somebody to watch your kids or your elderly sick parents, etc. All that costs money.
Click to expand...

Kind of like going to a particular place to vote? :r:

Mastiff said:
My point is that if you elect a narcissist to the highest office in this country, you've created a very dangerous situation. Yeah, let's give the nuclear codes to a thin skinned prick who lashes out at the smallest slight... that's a brilliant idea. :r:
Click to expand...

I sure the heck hope you are pointing that "You've" finger at someone else. I agree with your point and will add that Hillary is no better. Yes, she has thicker skin (just look at how she was treated by Slick Willy) but I doubt that Trump will be able to anything. There is no way the joint chiefs will allow him to use that level of power. Clinton Machine is manipulative enough to actually cause harm to the future of this country. Just look at all the people who have opposed their rise to power that have ended up dead. I am not positive that the DNC intern who was shot last week wasn't the leak for the e-mails. They say he was the victim of a robbery, but last I check, if someone is going to rob you, they take stuff. The shooters didn't take anything.

They both suck and I think it is foolish for anyone to vote for either of them.
 
michaelskis said:
Why don't minorities have IDs? I need an ID to drive a car, buy a beer, use a checkbook, purchase a gun, ammo, hunting or fishing licence, open a bank account, check into a hotel, get a job, attend college, get married, travel to other countries, return from other countries, sit for the AICP exam, get into some bars, buy lottery tickets, and a crap load of other stuff. Why shouldn't we require one to help choose who will run the county and be the most powerful person on the planet.

BTW, comedians have zero credibility in my book when it comes to politics.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure why minorities don't have IDs, but they don't have them in larger numbers than the average middle aged white guy (me). Elderly are also out on the ID thing because of mobility. The only thing voter laws have done is to stop a few people from voting. Most happen to be minorities or elderly which tend to vote democrat. The GOP knows this so they found a way to kill a few votes in the name of protecting voter fraud. It's not like it's hard to pull out an ID, but the reasoning behind it was wrong.

Sadly the comedians have a better grasp of the political situation than most news organizations. Of course they tend to bend it to the left, but they still report. Somewhere there's a study that shows people who watched Jon Stewart were better informed by far than the average Fox viewer and I think even other sources like MSN. If not I find it an entertaining method of getting part of my news.

For the equality argument I think a lot of people (not here) need to realize there still is inequality on so many levels and that we need to address it. I don't think a politician is the answer, but at least they can be a focal point for the conversation and then lead the conversation to help form any funding or laws we might need to correct the problem, but how do you do something like create equal pay? You shouldn't require it by law because not all people are equal in ability. You can't expect the government to compensate. So you have to change the thoughts of the person setting the pay to start offering equal amounts. I don't know how to do that. It's more than just a political problem, but if you're going to pick a political party based on equality as an issue you can pick the party that has pretty much always been inclusive or the party that is actively fighting against equality. Since I like the idea of equality I can't support a platform that wants to build a wall to keep out "criminals" or supports only "traditional marriage". My government doesn't represent a portion of the people, it represents all people regardless of things like sexual preference or religious preferences.


Although there is this bit from the GOP platform:
Zoning decisions have always been, and mustremain, under local control.
Click to expand...
 
dvdneal said:
I
For the equality argument I think a lot of people (not here) need to realize there still is inequality on so many levels and that we need to address it. I don't think a politician is the answer, but at least they can be a focal point for the conversation and then lead the conversation to help form any funding or laws we might need to correct the problem, but how do you do something like create equal pay? You shouldn't require it by law because not all people are equal in ability. You can't expect the government to compensate. So you have to change the thoughts of the person setting the pay to start offering equal amounts. I don't know how to do that. It's more than just a political problem, but if you're going to pick a political party based on equality as an issue you can pick the party that has pretty much always been inclusive or the party that is actively fighting against equality. Since I like the idea of equality I can't support a platform that wants to build a wall to keep out "criminals" or supports only "traditional marriage". My government doesn't represent a portion of the people, it represents all people regardless of things like sexual preference or religious preferences.
Click to expand...

I think that part of the problem is that it's not just one problem. I think that there are different combinations cultural and social issues involved, and all are made worse by the media, but I think that politics isn't the issue.
 
michaelskis said:
I sure the heck hope you are pointing that "You've" finger at someone else. I agree with your point and will add that Hillary is no better. Yes, she has thicker skin (just look at how she was treated by Slick Willy) but I doubt that Trump will be able to anything. There is no way the joint chiefs will allow him to use that level of power. Clinton Machine is manipulative enough to actually cause harm to the future of this country. Just look at all the people who have opposed their rise to power that have ended up dead. I am not positive that the DNC intern who was shot last week wasn't the leak for the e-mails. They say he was the victim of a robbery, but last I check, if someone is going to rob you, they take stuff. The shooters didn't take anything.

They both suck and I think it is foolish for anyone to vote for either of them.
Click to expand...

No no... I was using the generic "you" for clarity. I don't think Hillary is better at all, but she's dangerous in an entirely different way. But you're wrong about the nukes:

http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/orde...16/03/01-president-and-nuclear-button-ohanlon
The president of the United States can, in theory, launch nuclear war by personal decision—without any checks or balances. Whether we really think any of the candidates for president in 2016 would cavalierly start a nuclear war, the bombastic and bizarre character of much of this year's electoral debate should make us take this question seriously. Someday, the United States really could have a mentally ill president who chose to do the unthinkable. The odds are low, but we should seek to make them even lower, given the stakes at hand.
Click to expand...

So yeah, having a mentally unbalanced man as POTUS is damn scary.
 
michaelskis said:
I think that part of the problem is that it's not just one problem. I think that there are different combinations cultural and social issues involved, and all are made worse by the media, but I think that politics isn't the issue.
Click to expand...

That's just it, no politician is going to solve this or pastor or really smart guy like me. We as a people need to change and the best solution to me is walking a mile in another mans shoes, mostly in hopes that his feet stink less than mine, but also so we can understand the problems of others and realize the things we say and the laws we make have an effect on other people. I don't put social justice as one of my major voting points for any candidate. I look at things like, Trump is a racist, bigoted, psychopath so I can't vote for him. Can you imagine what kind of crap he would say at some state dinner if he's able to say these things about other Americans? Even our allies would hate us. The excuse that his business is international and he's had to deal with foreigners before doesn't cut it. He should know better than to say things like that which makes him an idiot and big business can always bully its way to deals which doesn't always work for government. I can't say Hillary is much better, but I'll end up voting for her because she at least has a plan. Not that I really like all her ideas either, but it's better than the village idiot that wondered out of New York.

I'll just keep hoping we get a third party one day or maybe the GOP gets its head out and starts acting like they represent more than the rednecks that just repeat whatever they say like the gospel truth. I might have to shoot the next person who tells me "their coming for your guns" and actually believes that someone will come to take their guns.
 
michaelskis said:
Kind of like going to a particular place to vote? :r:
Click to expand...

Voting's not only a constitutional right and a duty but also significantly easier to do than taking a day off work, catching a bus or two, and walking a mile, and that was before we had the early voting 3 weeks before an election, the vote by mail ballots that many counties and states are adopting, and the fact that poll locations are almost certainly open earlier and later than the DMV and closer to ones home or workplace.

That said election day should be a national holiday.
 
List of DT insults on Twitter including :redstar:

"very disloyal company" "one of the worst-performing stocks" "Don't shop there for Christmas!"
"disloyal" "very disloyal to me" "racial profiling"
"there are far better stores" "no guts, no glory" "Macy's stores suck and they are bad for U.S.A."
"no guts no glory" "Wow! I hear that thousands of people are cutting up their Macy's credit card." "terrible hypocrites"
"so many people calling to say they are cutting up their Macy's credit card" "Macy's stock just dropped"
"they 'racial profile' all over the place" "racists" "weak on border security"
Click to expand...

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/01/28/upshot/donald-trump-twitter-insults.html?_r=0
 
Tay-j said:
Voting's not only a constitutional right and a duty but also significantly easier to do than taking a day off work, catching a bus or two, and walking a mile, and that was before we had the early voting 3 weeks before an election, the vote by mail ballots that many counties and states are adopting, and the fact that poll locations are almost certainly open earlier and later than the DMV and closer to ones home or workplace.

That said election day should be a national holiday.
Click to expand...

I agree it should be a national holiday... But there is one problem. That means nothing anymore. Look at the number of places that are open on the 4th of July, New Years Day, Christmas, and Thanksgiving.

Besides, the clerks offices would need to be open to deal with all the crazy Trump supporters and the Hllary Fraud.
 
gtpeach said:
I actually forgot about this moment, too, where they had a moment of silence for fallen officers (that some people in the crowd tried to ruin with chants of Black Lives Matter). But the campaign itself made the effort to show respect to both sides of the issue. http://ijr.com/2016/07/661289-the-d...llen-police-officers-then-there-was-a-scream/

Here's the thing when it comes to racial equality as far as policing is concerned. The outrage isn't really just about Michael Brown or Trayvon Martin being killed. It comes from decades of significant power imbalances between police forces and the justice systems and the citizens that are patrolled. When Michael Brown was killed by the officer, it was the breaking point for all that pent up frustration to be released. Maybe Michael Brown isn't the most sympathetic victim, but that doesn't mean that all the unrest that was built up in his community was based on nothing. Justice department investigations found a lot of issues in the way Ferguson used discriminatory policing strategies to basically fund their government system. Police were not there so much to protect people, as they were to fundraise.

This plays out in a lot of other ways. But what essentially happened is that there was never any mutual respect or trust between the officers and the citizens, and it finally reached its boiling point. BOTH sides have responsibility to work together to figure it out. But when it comes down to it, there will always be a power imbalance that gives the police an edge, and so it is my opinion that they bear the responsibility to make the first move to bridge the divide. And if we find ways to do that better, I think it will improve the safety for both officers and citizens.
Click to expand...

Plain and simple, if the police in many municipalities treated whites the way they regularly treat blacks, the officers, the police administrators, and the city administrators would not only be in out of their jobs, a bunch of them would likely be in jail. OTOH, in many municipalities, there have been real efforts to treat all residents with respect, avoid racial profiling, integrate minorities not only into the police department but also into the political power structure, and these communities generally have had much less conflict between minority communities and the police than others. Of course, those places don't make headlines.
 
Back
Top