• 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

At the state level maybe, but this race was right wing crazy vs right wing loon. I'm hoping all this tea party, republican experiment state, and Trump BS spreads down ticket enough to start getting some change back to the middle nation wide.
 
dvdneal said:
True, I'm over dramatizing here, but what political statement doesn't. If Texas (I'm just picking on them today) spent just a fraction of its time, effort, and money to support protection and provide access to basic birth controls (and stop preaching abstinence - drama part) instead of trying to shut down abortion clinics it would have dramatically lowered its abortion rates and actually provided health care to women. Imagine actually working for your people.

Personally I don't think abortion is a government issue. I think it's a personal issue between you and your god/family/doctor. Gubmint can keep it's ideas out religious beliefs on life out of my life (granted that also means you accept the courts definition of life which many people don't)

Oh, and please stop killing the doctors. That really isn't very pro life of you. Always a crazy on every side. :not:
Click to expand...

It is funny that M'skis and I have gone a few rounds on here on the abortion topic, but he and I are not that far off on personal moral beliefs when it comes to abortion. Nobody likes abortion. My thing is simply that I think it is a huge waste of time trying to legally restrict abortion when the much better, cheaper & more scientifically-backed method of reducing abortions is through effective prevention of unwanted pregnancies through improved holistic education and contraceptive access. After all, the unifying goal for all is to reduce/eliminate unwanted pregnancies. That approach also treats women with respect when it comes to controlling decisions about their own bodies. Texas, unfortunately, went the abstinence only route and I can't begin to tell you how many pregnant teens I saw that only months before were wearing "purity rings" and talking about how condoms in schools were degrading society. I view abortion as symptomatic of a public health failure rather than a moral issue.
 
Suburb Repairman said:
It is funny that M'skis and I have gone a few rounds on here on the abortion topic, but he and I are not that far off on personal moral beliefs when it comes to abortion. Nobody likes abortion. My thing is simply that I think it is a huge waste of time trying to legally restrict abortion when the much better, cheaper & more scientifically-backed method of reducing abortions is through effective prevention of unwanted pregnancies through improved holistic education and contraceptive access. After all, the unifying goal for all is to reduce/eliminate unwanted pregnancies. That approach also treats women with respect when it comes to controlling decisions about their own bodies. Texas, unfortunately, went the abstinence only route and I can't begin to tell you how many pregnant teens I saw that only months before were wearing "purity rings" and talking about how condoms in schools were degrading society. I view abortion as symptomatic of a public health failure rather than a moral issue.
Click to expand...

I think that you bring up a great point. I am pro-life as in anti-abortion. However, despite being Catholic, I do not have a problem with preventative measures including contraception. I don't think that the government should pay for it, but I am not opposed to people using it. In many ways, I am pro-choice until the point of conception. Once conception happens, it is no longer about just the mother... then it is about the mother and child.
 
I think when Newt Gingrich and Rudy Giuliani are considering staging an intervention because of your bad temper and narcissistic, media-whorish behavior you really need to reevaluate your life choices.
 
WSU MUP Student said:
I think when Newt Gingrich and Rudy Giuliani are considering staging an intervention because of your bad temper and narcissistic, media-whorish behavior you really need to reevaluate your life choices.
Click to expand...

Is that anything like having Willie Nelson and Snoop coming to talk to me about my smoking problem?
 
The REAL American Hoarders!!

MBCyQYq.png
 
I'm curious how ursus plans to vote this election? His views/feelings may reflect other Utahns
 
Maister said:
I'm curious how ursus plans to vote this election? His views/feelings may reflect other Utahns
Click to expand...

Funny you would ask.


I will probably vote for Clinton. I am a registered Republican, but as I get older, I have started to lean from the center (where I really am) toward the democrats. I truly don't love Clinton, but if I'm honest with myself, her views on things more closely align with my own than do Mr. Trumps, and I think she'd be more capable of true governance. I may not reflect the views and feelings of a majority of other Utahns, but at least of a growing number of us. I would predict the following:

1 - Trump will win Utah.
2 - It will be the most contested that Utah has been since before Kennedy.
3 - That trend will continue in the future, as Utah diversifies and the Republican party does not.


P.S. Lots of otherwise very Republican people I know express grave doubts about Trump, which is interesting. Sociologically, Utah is a paradox: In our bones, the majority actively mormon and culturally mormon of us are very suspicious of anyone who seems too authoritative. This is funny, because if the authoritative person tells us that they talked to God about it then we're completely cool with it. If Trump wanted to landslide Utah, he'd have to claim personal revelation that he was supposed to lead the US on the path to becoming the Promised Land again. I'm only 30% joking. A speech like that could lock it up here.
 
I think Kansas will vote for Trump because we vote the party line here no matter what and Hillary is evil. It is funny to think that states like Kansas are in play though.

Ursus, as an authoritative person I demand that you move down here to Kansas with me so we can be neighbors. I spoke to god. He said it's a great idea.

Is it too early to drop some bait for Mskies?
 
dvdneal said:
I think Kansas will vote for Trump because we vote the party line here no matter what and Hillary is evil. It is funny to think that states like Kansas are in play though.

Ursus, as an authoritative person I demand that you move down here to Kansas with me so we can be neighbors. I spoke to god. He said it's a great idea.
Click to expand...

I'm - on - my ---- way.......can't --- resist .......you're so ....--- charming and rakish, ---- and now the ----- god thing........
 
The polling here in Texas is getting entertaining. Texas Tribune published a poll indicating Clinton has only a six point deficit to Trump. I'm good friends with a Texas democratic campaign strategist that openly scoffed at the poll. Lots of wishful thinking here in the purple & blue folks of Texas, and maybe even some moderate GOP folks that want to believe their party is better than its nominee.

Trump will win Texas, but there will be a story here about democrats gaining ground based on demographics (younger Texans and Latinos are going overwhelmingly for Clinton, if their asses would just show up at the voting booth). Also, you are seeing a significant Californication of Texas, with more moderate/liberal politics coming with our new residents.

My friend has pegged the "purple Texas" swing state coming out party election as 2024.
 
Suburb Repairman said:
My friend has pegged the "purple Texas" swing state coming out party election as 2024.
Click to expand...

Georgia, which has been a solidly red state for a long time, is also in play this year. I don't live there anymore, but I still have an Atlanta number. My phone's gotten blown up with requests to volunteer and vote. Which is odd, because I have no idea how they'd know I'd be more likely to volunteer for the Democratic campaign. Their intel on me is a little frightening.
 
This is what I posted on FB this morning after one of my aunts that I haven't unfollowed yet posted another pro-Trump article from a highly biased website:

As the political debates continue, I find myself quite often contemplating this quote from St. Augustine:
“In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity.”

This was a status update, not a response to my aunt's post or directly referencing it in any way. I don't argue positions with people online. I don't post anything specific about any candidates on my FB page, although I may comment on others from time-to-time. My sister-in-law posted a freak-out response to it, copying and pasting text from this link: http://www.whylibertymatters.com/.

Was my post in any way controversial? And the bigger question, do I respond, leave it alone, or delete her comment?
 
gtpeach said:
Georgia, which has been a solidly red state for a long time, is also in play this year. I don't live there anymore, but I still have an Atlanta number. My phone's gotten blown up with requests to volunteer and vote. Which is odd, because I have no idea how they'd know I'd be more likely to volunteer for the Democratic campaign. Their intel on me is a little frightening.
Click to expand...

Eh, I doubt Georgia goes blue this time - the polling showing Clinton with a lead is a bit suspect, and based on the total number of voters in the primaries, somewhere around 500,000 Republican voters would have to either stay home or otherwise not vote for Trump.
 
gtpeach said:
This is what I posted on FB this morning after one of my aunts that I haven't unfollowed yet posted another pro-Trump article from a highly biased website:

As the political debates continue, I find myself quite often contemplating this quote from St. Augustine:
“In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity.”

This was a status update, not a response to my aunt's post or directly referencing it in any way. I don't argue positions with people online. I don't post anything specific about any candidates on my FB page, although I may comment on others from time-to-time. My sister-in-law posted a freak-out response to it, copying and pasting text from this link: http://www.whylibertymatters.com/.

Was my post in any way controversial? And the bigger question, do I respond, leave it alone, or delete her comment?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't follow up, but that's just me. I let things be.

It sounds like someone misinterpreted the quote by thinking liberty was not essential when it's trying to say we should have liberty from non-essential things.
 
As long as no one else responds, I'll leave it up.

I just wish people didn't have to comment on EVERYTHING. There's an "unfollow" option on FB. I use it quite a bit.
 
This is interesting. Facebook thinks it knows your political affiliation (not party, more like your political leanings). In my case, I don't believe it was correct. It labelled me as conservative. I'm certainly not the most progressive person out there, and from a personal standpoint I probably am very conservative, but politically, I'd consider myself moderate to slightly liberal.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/24/u...cs.html?smid=fb-share&mtrref=www.facebook.com
 
Funny, The Facebook says I'm "very conservative". I'd consider myself Republican, but definitely moderate. I tend to not agree with some of the party line about guns and abortion, but I do like the idea of limited government and fiscally responsible government. My guess, I have some right leaning friends who post all kinds of crap about guns and how evil the Hillary is. I rarely post anything on The Facebook myself.

It would be hilarious if The Facebook thinks the Donald is liberal.
 
Ha ha

Libertarian Party = Fantasy Party (not reality based in any way) Could also be called the romantic rugged individual party or RRIP
 
Political craziness going on and Mskies is still resisting a post. We'll just have to do some better fishing.

Trump's love of Russia makes Hillary the best candidate.




Anything?


Got a bite yet?
 
Another earthquake in South Korea. Reported at 5.1 this time. My cousins family felt it. Doesn't look like any major news outlets are reporting it yet, happened about 2 hours ago. Seems like it's a natural quake, although it happened in south east SK which is rare.
 
I think the Clinton sickness thing is a perfect microcosm of what our political environment is like:

Liberal Media:
- Clinton is a strong person and a rock star for working so hard when she was clearly sick!

Conservative Media:
- Clinton is dying and is not fit to be President!


--

I am not really into conspiracy theories, but Clinton needs to start trying the honest route. If she gets sick, she might want to disclose that. I think her trustworthiness is really taking a hit when she lies about her health.
 
You know she just took the gamble.

Option 1: Tell everyone you're a little sick and have the other side say you're dying.
Option 2: Hide it and hope no one finds out. If it works we're good, if not, we're screwed worse than if we used option 1.
 
Hink said:
I think her trustworthiness is really taking a hit when she lies about her health.
Click to expand...

How many more hits can her trustworthiness take? I mean come on. It's not like the truth and Hillary have ever been joined at the hip. As distasteful as Trump is, Clinton is the absolute master of phoney. She is so utterly unbelievable it's like watching a sitcom anymore.
 
This one doesn't bother me in the slightest. For having pneumonia, I'd say she recovered pretty quickly and fared a lot better than I would have under the same circumstances.

Complain about HRC's credibility all you want, but it has nothing on Trump's. I largely think from an objective viewpoint, her credibility isn't all that bad to be perfectly honest. I think she's just been the subject of massive witch hunts for so long, the associations started to stick and kept snowballing.

Is she the epitome of honesty? Definitely not, but I don't think she's been any more dishonest than pretty much any other person that's run for president in the scheme of things.
 
She may be sicker than they're letting on. It's not just the nut jobs saying it, either. Heat exhaustion? No water, no removing her jacket, no fanning. And it clearly looks like a neurological test is being administered.

Those sunglasses also look like the kind designed to stop seizures. I'm not a conspiracy nut, but it sure doesn't sound good.
 
I hate to say it, but I prefer a dead Hillary (please ignore this secret service guys) to a live Trump and it's not like I'm the biggest Hilldog fan (my wife is though). I find her to be just another politician and I don't see clarity in her motives, but you didn't give me much else to vote for. Besides, if she does have health issues her VP pick isn't that bad. Still better than anything on the other side.
 
dvdneal said:
I hate to say it, but I prefer a dead Hillary (please ignore this secret service guys) to a live Trump and it's not like I'm the biggest Hilldog fan (my wife is though). I find her to be just another politician and I don't see clarity in her motives, but you didn't give me much else to vote for. Besides, if she does have health issues her VP pick isn't that bad. Still better than anything on the other side.
Click to expand...

However, if she drops out we get Bernie back.
 
Mastiff said:
However, if she drops out we get Bernie back.
Click to expand...

No, the DNC would appoint the candidate if Hilary drops out.

http://www.wnd.com/2016/09/what-if-hillary-clinton-drops-out/

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...linton-dropped-out-of-the-race-for-president/

http://www.scmp.com/news/world/unit.../what-happens-if-hillary-clinton-drops-out-us

Realistically, if Hilary drops out, Joe Biden will probably be the nomination. Whether he chooses to accept is up in the air. Sanders would be the absolutely last choice given how cold the relationship has gotten between him and the DNC, even with him endorsing Hilary and Wasserman-Shultz out of the picture.
 
AG74683 said:
No, the DNC would appoint the candidate if Hilary drops out.

http://www.wnd.com/2016/09/what-if-hillary-clinton-drops-out/

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...linton-dropped-out-of-the-race-for-president/

http://www.scmp.com/news/world/unit.../what-happens-if-hillary-clinton-drops-out-us

Realistically, if Hilary drops out, Joe Biden will probably be the nomination. Whether he chooses to accept is up in the air. Sanders would be the absolutely last choice given how cold the relationship has gotten between him and the DNC, even with him endorsing Hilary and Wasserman-Shultz out of the picture.
Click to expand...

I think the DNC realizes that if she drops out and they replace her with anyone but Sanders (Whose name was written into the nomination), it could cause a Democratic revolt that could tear down the party.
 
I'd be okay with Joe. Bernie I could handle for 4 years until both parties get their shit together and put out a real candidate.
 
Mastiff said:
I think the DNC realizes that if she drops out and they replace her with anyone but Sanders (Whose name was written into the nomination), it could cause a Democratic revolt that could tear down the party.
Click to expand...

I don't agree with that, and I'm a huge supporter of Sanders. The overwhelming vote from the public during the primary was for Clinton. I know there were lots of voter impropriety allegations and strong evidence that the DNC favored Clinton, but those aside, the popular vote was clearly on HRC's side. The vast majority of those in power with the DNC want Clinton and couldn't care less about Sanders. I really hate to admit it because like I said, Sanders is/was my candidate. Biden would be a good middle ground. Both Clinton and Sanders supporters could find a comfortable area there. If anything, I'd cast a vote for Biden just fore more patented Big Joe Awkward Moments (TM). I don't believe he would accept the nomination though. He's ready to spend time with his family I think. Losing Beau really took the wind out of his sails (which I completely understand).

But we all know Hilary will not resign, not after she's come this far. The DNC can postulate all they want to about a possible Clinton drop out, but there isn't any group in the party willing to push her out at this point. She's going to run until she is elected, loses, or dies, because that's just the woman she is.
 
Can someone explain something to me?

I have been following the news regarding the police shooting in Charlotte, but I am curious about why there was rioting and how it is "white people's fault". Moreso, do people think that rioting, looting, and shooting each other, knocking over CNN reporters, trying to put another reporter into a fire in the middle of the street, bashing the windows of buses, and destroying police cars will help race relations in the City?

Here is what the NY Times has on the shooting. (LINK)
 
How canned of a response or could be said of any office ? ;) :r: :p

Once elected, I would fully assess the need for any and all changes that would help streamline the office and make it more efficient.
Any changes that are implemented would be to better serve the public and the agencies utilizing the services provided by the ......... Office.
Enhance the flow of the work to create a smooth and more efficient office.
Click to expand...

so said a local candidate in a newspaper q & a
 
michaelskis said:
Can someone explain something to me?

I have been following the news regarding the police shooting in Charlotte, but I am curious about why there was rioting and how it is "white people's fault". Moreso, do people think that rioting, looting, and shooting each other, knocking over CNN reporters, trying to put another reporter into a fire in the middle of the street, bashing the windows of buses, and destroying police cars will help race relations in the City?

Here is what the NY Times has on the shooting. (LINK)
Click to expand...

I can understand the anger, but I don't understand rioting in general. I'm mad so I'm going to destroy stuff in my neighborhood. My team lost and it's the ref's fault so let's riot. My team won, let's riot.

New planning idea, punching dummies as part of the streetscape so you can get your anger out in a safe way.
 
dvdneal said:
I can understand the anger, but I don't understand rioting in general. I'm mad so I'm going to destroy stuff in my neighborhood. My team lost and it's the ref's fault so let's riot. My team won, let's riot.

New planning idea, punching dummies as part of the streetscape so you can get your anger out in a safe way.
Click to expand...

Here's a really good explanation on why people riot: http://time.com/3838515/baltimore-riots-language-unheard-quote/

A combination of high levels of emotions, and then mob mentality starts taking over, and things continue to escalate.

Why is it white people's fault? If you look back at the original civil rights movement, there were similar claims made by certain groups. There are plenty of white people that will say things directly or indirectly about things being black people's fault. So we shouldn't really expect everyone who's angry to be any different than the majority population in certain respects. I will say that an argument could be made that collectively white people who have been apathetic to a lot of the issues that are currently being protested probably have contributed to the issues not being addressed sooner.
 
dvdneal said:
I can understand the anger, but I don't understand rioting in general. I'm mad so I'm going to destroy stuff in my neighborhood. My team lost and it's the ref's fault so let's riot. My team won, let's riot.

New planning idea, punching dummies as part of the streetscape so you can get your anger out in a safe way.
Click to expand...

Well, even the anger aspect is an interesting topic of discussion. I am not saying that they do or they don't have a right to be angry... but I think that there needs to be a better understanding and discussion of why they are angry. Was it because they thought that the police unfairly profiled this guy? Was it because he was shot and killed by a police officer? Is there a pattern and if so, what are the factors behind those patterns. Do people follow the instructions of the police officers or is their racial profiling that results in these types of shootings regardless of the actions of the police officers?

The reason I ask is because I really wonder how much race has a role to play in this. Furthermore, do you think that media coverage of these events make the situation worse or better?

gtpeach said:
Here's a really good explanation on why people riot: http://time.com/3838515/baltimore-riots-language-unheard-quote/

A combination of high levels of emotions, and then mob mentality starts taking over, and things continue to escalate.

Why is it white people's fault? If you look back at the original civil rights movement, there were similar claims made by certain groups. There are plenty of white people that will say things directly or indirectly about things being black people's fault. So we shouldn't really expect everyone who's angry to be any different than the majority population in certain respects. I will say that an argument could be made that collectively white people who have been apathetic to a lot of the issues that are currently being protested probably have contributed to the issues not being addressed sooner.
Click to expand...

I don't argue that there has been a long history of racism in the US, and there is still racism today. But this is a situation where a black police officer shot an armed black man. The police officer also works in a city with a black police chief. During the riots, one black man shot and killed another black man, and they looted several stores, including the store for the local NBA team, which is owned by Michael Jordan.

I wonder if it is more of a cultural issue than a racial issue and what can be done to actually fix the problem. I think that the BLM movement is doing the opposite with these riots.
 
michaelskis said:
I don't argue that there has been a long history of racism in the US, and there is still racism today. But this is a situation where a black police officer shot an armed black man. The police officer also works in a city with a black police chief. During the riots, one black man shot and killed another black man, and they looted several stores, including the store for the local NBA team, which is owned by Michael Jordan.

I wonder if it is more of a cultural issue than a racial issue and what can be done to actually fix the problem. I think that the BLM movement is doing the opposite with these riots.
Click to expand...

This won't directly address the issue, but if you look at any of the implicit bias research, other black people are also likely to have a negative bias toward fellow blacks than they are to whites. Because I'm not looking up all this research on my lunch break, I would guess that a lot of it is due to conditioning, both in the past where blacks maybe wanted to be white in order to be treated better, or black children having only white toys to play with, to now as black people are standardly portrayed as criminals and "thugs" in a lot of our media.

So, I would say that even if the officer is black, he's still a product of this conditioning that he's experienced just as being a person in the U.S., but also in police culture where there is a lot of research that supports the idea that there is racial bias when officers choose how to treat suspects.

To be honest, I don't follow the BLM movement. I think they started out generally being angry at the status quo, but are now starting to try to organize around actual policy ideas. I think the country as a whole being willingly to meaningfully engage in a serious discussion about this, and being willing to accept that the racial discrimination is real and is bigger than just a few rogue people acting outside the norm, is also a big step. But it's not an easy one.

There are a lot of suggestions for law enforcement, like support for community policing efforts to allow officers to get to know the folks in their patrol areas on a personal basis, citizen review boards, investigators from outside the department looking into any cases of interest, better training regarding implicit bias, etc. But that's just one area. And there are pervasive issues in tons of various other areas (housing discrimination, voter discrimination, potentially job discrimination, etc.). So, in my opinion, the way to solve the issues is to start listening, bring everyone together, and start working on solutions that are based in sound policy, and respect the voices of those that are disenfranchised. This is only going to be able to happen on a local level, in my opinion, but the feds could work to help put together tool kits and training programs and things like that.
 
Back
Top